Ramavtar Soni vs State Of Raj And Ors ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1314 Raj/2

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 1314 Raj/2
Judgement Date : 1 February, 2023

Rajasthan High Court

Ramavtar Soni vs State Of Raj And Ors ... on 1 February, 2023

Bench: Chandra Kumar Songara

[2023/RJJP/001119]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

            S.B. Civil Restoration Application No. 30/2018
                                        In
            S.B. Civil Regular Second Appeal No.166/1991

Ramawtar Soni S/o Sh. Anandilalji, R/o Plot No.308, Near Shriji
Temple, Haveli Moti Oswal, Kaladera, Tehsil Chomu, District
Jaipur.
                                                        ----Applicant/Appellant
                                    Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through Secretary to the Government
Education Department, Rajasthan Jaipur.
2. Director, Primary and Secondary Eudcation Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Administrator (S.D.M., Chomu District Jaipur), S.P.R. Saharia
Higher Secondary Scholl, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur.
4. The Principal, S.P.R. Saharia Higher Secondary School,
Kaladera, District Jaipur.
                                                                 ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C.P. Sharma, Advocate

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA

Order

01/02/2023 Matter has come up on misc. application bearing

Inward No.79/2018 filed by the learned counsel appearing for

the applicant-appellant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963

seeking condonation of delay in filing the aforesaid restoration

application.

It is pleaded in the aforesaid application that the

present appeal was filed on behalf of the appellant against the

impugned judgment & decree dated 19.07.1991 passed by the

Court of Additional Civil Judge No.1, Jaipur District Jaipur,

whereby, learned Court dismissed the First Appeal by upholding

the judgment and decree dated 03.02.1986 passed by the learned

[2023/RJJP/001119] (2 of 3) [CRES-30/2018]

Munsif Magistrate, Chomu. The present appeal came to be listed

before the Court on 14.05.2015 but on that day, counsel for the

appellant could not appear before the Court as the case could not

be marked by him, hence, peremptory order to file fresh process

fee & notices, was passed. On 06.07.2015 the said appeal came to

be listed before the Deputy Registrar (Judl.) but on that day also,

counsel for the appellant could not appear as the same could not

be marked by him, resultantly, the appeal was dismissed for non-

prosecution.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

order dated 14.05.2015 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this

Court and the order dated 06.07.2015 passed by the Dy. Registrar

(Judl.) was neither within his knowledge nor within the knowledge

of appellant/applicant.

Heard. Perused the material made available on record.

In the present case, the application under Section 5 of

Limitation Act has been filed after an inordinate delay of 870 days

and the applicant has failed to show any sufficient cause for

condoning the delay in filing the aforesaid restoration application.

In the case of Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao Vs.

Reddy Sridevi & Others, 2022 (1) DNJ (SC) 346, Hon'ble

Apex Court, has observed as under:-

"8. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand and considering the averments in the application for condonation of delay, we are of the opinion that as such no explanation much less a sufficient or a satisfactory explanation had been offered by respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein - appellants before the High Court for condonation of huge delay of

[2023/RJJP/001119] (3 of 3) [CRES-30/2018]

1011 days in preferring the Second Appeal. The High Court is not at all justified in exercising its discretion to condone such a huge delay. The High Court has not exercised the discretion judiciously. The reasoning given by the High Court while condoning huge delay of 1011 days is not germane. Therefore, the High Court has erred in condoning the huge delay of 1011 days in preferring the appeal by respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein - original defendants. Impugned order passed by the High Court is unsustainable both, on law as well as on facts."

After going through the contents of the application for

condonation of delay and in view of judgment rendered in the case

of Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao (supra), this Court is of the

view that the delay in filing the restoration application cannot be

said to be bonafide or unintentional. There is no justification in

condoning the inordinate delay of 870 days in filing the restoration

application.

Accordingly, application bearing Inward No.79/2018

filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act seeking condonation of

delay in filing the restoration application is dismissed.