Rajasthan High Court
Shabnam Raisinghani W/O Late ... vs Rajasthan State Road Transport ... on 8 February, 2022
Bench: Prakash Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Review Petition No. 93/2019
In
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1792/2013
1. Shabnam Raisinghani W/o Late Shree Govind Sahay
Raisinghani
2. Raja Raisinghani S/o Late Shree Govind Sahay
Raisinghani
3. Kumari Sapna Raisinghani D/o Late Shri Govind Sahay
Raisinghani,
All Resident of 4/454, Rajshri Apartment, Gali No. 4,
Rajapark, Jaipur
----Appellants/Claimants
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation through its
General Manager, Chomu House, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur
2. Chief Manager, State Road Transport Corporation,
Hanumangarh
3. Ummed Chand S/o Shri Durga Ram, R/o Ranasar Police
Station Nawal Garh, District Jhunjhunu, presently Driver,
State Road Transport Corporation, Hanuman Garh Depot,
Hanuman Garh
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Bhargava, Advocate
(through VC)
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Virendra Agarwal, Advocate
(through VC)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA
Order
08/02/2022
This review petition has been filed by the petitioner for
reviewing the judgment dated 10.12.2018 passed by this Court in
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1792/2013. Since the review petition
(2 of 5) [CRW-93/2019]
has been filed with a delay of 118 days, an application under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act has also been filed seeking
condonation of delay.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that vide
judgment dated 10.12.2018 passed by this Court, two appeals -
one (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1792/2013) filed by the claimants
and another (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.53/2013) filed by the
RSRTC were disposed of by this Court and this Court modified the
award dated 24.11.2012 to the extent that the amount of
compensation receivable by the claimants would be
Rs.18,79,889/- instead of Rs.17,06,828/- and remaining terms
and conditions of the award were directed to be same. This Court
further directed that the RSRTC shall deposit the enhanced
amount along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of
filing of the claim petition till date of payment with the Tribunal
within a period of two months from that date. He further submits
that the learned Tribunal vide its award dated 24.11.2012 while
enhancing the amount of compensation from Rs.14,25,044 to
Rs.17,86,828/- imposed condition No.4 that the interest @ 6% on
the enhanced amount shall be paid with effect from the date of
passing the award dated 24.11.2012 instead of the date of filing
the claim petition i.e. 7.8.2003. He further submits that the
condition no. 4 imposed in the award was challenged in the appeal
filed by the claimants - appellants and this Court vide its judgment
dated 10.12.2018 while enhancing the amount of compensation
from Rs. 17,06,828/- to Rs. 18,79,889/- awarded interest @ 6%
p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date of filing the claim
petition till the date of payment with the Tribunal within a period
of two months, but simultaneously also ordered that remaining
(3 of 5) [CRW-93/2019]
terms and conditions of the award shall be the same. In this view
of the matter, he has prayed to review the judgment dated
10.12.2018 and to direct the RSRTC to deposit the amount
enhanced by the Tribunal vide its award dated 24.11.2012
alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim
petition till date of payment with the Tribunal.
He further submits that after obtaining the certified
copy of the judgment dated 10.12.2018, in the last week,
aforesaid fact to the notice of the appellants-claimants. The delay
caused in this matter is bonafide and not intentional one. Hence,
delay occurred in this matter be condoned.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the RSRTC has
opposed the same and submits that the judgment dated
10.12.2018 passed by this Court has already been complied with
by the Corporation and enhanced amount has already been
received by the claimants appellants without any protest. Thus,
instant review petition is an after-thought, which does not fall
within the purview of 'review'. He further submits that the review
petition has been filed with a delay of 118 days, for which no
reasonable and sufficient cause has been shown. He has drawn
the attention of this Court towards paragraph nos. 2 and 3 of the
application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which are
reproduced as under:
"2. That recently during the course of
implementation of the award it was found that
since in the award passed by the learned
Tribunal dated 24th November, 2012, the
condition no. 4 was that the enhanced amount is
to be paid with interest at the rate of 6% per
(4 of 5) [CRW-93/2019]
annum from 20th November, 2012 i.e. w.e.f. the
date of filing of the claim petition and the
learned Tribunal on the count that condition no.
4 is kept intact by this Hon'ble Court, the
humble petitioner is held entitled only for the
interest w.e.f. 24th November, 2012 on the
enhanced amount by the Tribunal that was
enhanced from Rs. 14,25,044/- to
Rs.17,06,828/-.
3. That since in the last week the humble
appellant / claimant came to know about such
notice and immediately thereafter the review
petition is filed before this Hon'ble Court, as
such there is no intentional delay."
Heard. Considered.
It is an admitted fact that on 10.12.2018 judgment was
passed by this Court and its certified copy was obtained on
15.1.2019. After passing the judgment dated 10.12.2018 by this
Court, the same was complied with by the Corporation and
enhanced amount was deposited, which has already been received
by the claimants appellants without any protest but why within the
prescribed period of limitation, the review petition was not filed,
no good cause, much less sufficient cause, has been given in the
application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the
delay of 118 days.
In this view of the matter, I find no good ground to
condone the delay of 118 days in filing the review petition. The
application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is accordingly
dismissed.
(5 of 5) [CRW-93/2019]
Consequent upon the dismissal of the application under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the review petition does not
survive and the same also stands dismissed accordingly.
(PRAKASH GUPTA),J
KuD/39
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
