Sripal Agarwal S/O Late Shri ... vs Smt. Sheopyari Devi D/O Late Shri ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 6755 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

              S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 712/2018

Sripal Agarwal S/o Late Shri Jagdish Narayan Agarwal
                                                                     ----Appellant
                                          Versus
Smt. Sheopyari Devi D/o Late Shri Narayan Lal
                                                                  ----Respondent

For Appellant(s)              :    Mr. R.K. Daga
For Respondent(s)             :    Mr. Shashi Bhushan Gupta with
                                   Ms. Sudha Gupta



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

                                          Order

18/10/2022

1. This first appeal has been filed by appellants-plaintiffs

against dismissal of their suit for specific performance,

declaration, possession and permanent injunction vide judgment

dated 20.9.2017 passed in suit No.112/2014 by Additional District

Judge No.6, Jaipur Metropolitan.

2. There is a delay of 226 days in filing the appeal. This court

vide order dated 20.8.2018, issued notices to respondents on

application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

3. As per office report, notices have been served.

4. Counsel appearing for respondents No.2 and 3, pleads no

instructions as their clients have not contacted to them.

5. Heard counsel for appellants on application under Section 5

of the Limitation Act.

6. It has been contended that the first appeal is a statutory and

valuable right of party and the delay in filing the appeal occurred

(2 of 2) [CFA-712/2018]

due to the assurance to settle the dispute on behalf of

respondents-defendants.

7. The Supreme Court in case of Mithailal Dalsangar Singh

Vs. Annabai Devram Kini [(2003) 10 SCC 691] has assailed

that the Court should endeavour to decide the first appeal on

merits instead of dismissal on the ground of limitation until and

unless same is not malafide.

8. Considering the reason mentioned in the application and

entire facts and circumstances, the application seems to be

bonafide and has not opposed by respondents despite service of

notice, hence, the same is allowed.

9. In view of above, application for early hearing stands

disposed of.

10. List again on 16.11.2022 for admission.

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

NITIN /54

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)