Ram Karan vs Ram Pratap
2022 Latest Caselaw 5395 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

               S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 420/2002

Ram Karan son of Shri Ghasi
                                                                    ----Appellant
                                    Versus
Ram Pratap son of Shri Panchu & Ors.
                                                                 ---Respondents

Connected With S.B. Civil Restoration Application No. 134/2019 Rampratap S/o Panchu & Ors.

----Appellants Versus Ramkaran S/o Ghasilal & Anr.

                                                                 ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)          :     Mr. B.R. Rana
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Rohan Agarwal for
                                Mr. M.M. Ranjan
                                Mr. Lokesh Kumar Sharma

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

Order

02/08/2022

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 420/2002:

It has been informed that legal heirs of deceased Birdi have

moved an application on 3.3.2022 but office has not listed the

application.

Office is directed to check and proceed to list the application.

S.B. Civil Restoration Application No. 134/2019:

It appears that against the impugned judgment, defendant

has filed the second appeal No.420/2002 which is pending for

hearing before this Court, however, the appeal filed by plaintiffs

came to be dismissed due to non-compliance of peremptory order

dated 2.11.2016.

(2 of 2) [CSA-420/2002]

Counsel for applicant-appellant undertakes to file required PF

and notices and to ensure service upon unserved respondents, in

case second appeal is allowed to restore. He submits that since

the peremptory order was passed in absence of appellant,

therefore, after having knowledge of order, the restoration

application has been filed, hence, delay may be condoned.

Considering the fact that another appeal filed by defendant is

pending and yet to be heard by this Court, the delay in filing

restoration is condoned and second appeal filed by plaintiffs

bearing No.361/2002 deserves to be restored.

In these circumstances, the delay is condoned. Restoration

application is allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.5000/- to

be deposited in the bank account of Registrar General, Rajasthan

High Court within a period of four weeks.

On deposition of receipt of cost amount, office is directed to

restore the second appeal No.361/2002 to its original number.

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

NITIN /24-25

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)