Om Prakash vs Nathu Ram And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 6198 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

         S.B. Civil Restoration Application No. 168/2010
                                       In
                S.B. Civil First Appeal No.23/1992

Om Prakash (Deceased) through his LRS:
1/1. Kedar Prasad Sharma son of late Shri Om Prakash, resident
of Vyas Mohallah, Dausa; at present 91, Shankar Nagar
Extensioin, Kakdiwada, Brahmpuri, Jaipur.
1/2. Smt. Geeta Devi wife of Shri Ramesh Chandra Sharma,
resident of Baniyala Dausa.
1/3.    Smt.    Gayatri   Devi   wife   of  Shri  MukutBihari
Sharma, resident of Opp. Roadways Bus Depot, Agra Road,
Dausa.
1/4. Smt. Savitri Devi wife of Shri Manmohan Sharma, resident
of "Geeta Bhawan" Plot No. A-15, Kesar Nagar, Panchayawala,
Jaipur.
                                                    ---Plaintiffs-Petitioner
                                   Versus
Nathuram (Deceased)

1/1. Mool Chand
1/2. Babu Lal
1/3. Rajendra
1/4.Banwari
All sons of late Shri Nathuram, resident of Mohallah Khatawala,
Jaipur Darawaja, Behind Old Jail, Dausa Distt. Dausa.

2. Prabhu Das Chela Shri Kishan Das Dadupanthi, resident of
Mohallah     Chhawani,       Dausa,     Distt.       Dausa.

3. Jagdish Prasad son of Shri Raghunath Prasad, by caste
Mahajan, resident of Koliwara, at present Sunder Das Marg,
Manganj, Dausa, Distt. Dausa.
                                             ---Defendants-Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Lokesh Tiwari For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

Order

15/09/2022

(2 of 2) [CRES-168/2010]

1. From the perusal of record, it transpires that the appellant is

highly negligent in prosecuting the first appeal and as also in not

pursuing the present restoration application for last 12 years.

2. It appears from the record that the civil suit for specific

performance based on the agreement dated 09.05.1980 filed by

the appellant-plaintiff has dismissed on merits vide judgment and

decree dated 07.12.1991.

3. Appellant-plaintiff preferred the first appeal No.23/1992

wherein notices were issued vide order dated 11.03.1992 but

appellant did not pursue the appeal and the appeal was dismissed

for non-prosecution vide order dated 02.04.2008. Thereafter,

restoration application was filed on 04.04.2008. The restoration

application too has not pursued since last more than 12 years.

Now after lapse of such long period, the pursuation of restoration

does not appear to be bona fide. A litigation which has virtually

been dead and has attained finality with passage of time may not

be revived after such long period.

4. Accordingly, the restoration application is dismissed.

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

TN/19

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)