Rajasthan High Court
Jai Narayan Jat vs Hari Narain on 24 January, 2023
Bench: Chandra Kumar Songara
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 74/2012
Jainarain Jat S/o Sh. Ramnath Jat, resident of village Tahtada, Tehasil
Bassi, District Jaipur (since deceased)
----Appellant/Plaintiff
Versus
1. Harinarain Sharma S/o Lt. Sh. Laxminarain Sharma (since
deceased)
2. Girdhari S/o Satyanarain Sharma
3. Mohan Lal S/o Rewashankar
All resident of village Tahtada, Tehasil Bassi, District Jaipur
----Respondents/Defendants
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Nand Ram Choudhary, Advocate for
Jainarayan Jat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Mishra, for
Mr. Ajeet Bhandari, Advocate
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA
Order
24/01/2023 :
Matter has come up on an application bearing Inward
No.1/19 dt.14.11.2019 filed by the learned counsel appearing for the
LRs. of sole deceased appellant-Jainarain under Order 22 Rule 3
readwith Rule 9 (2) & Rule 11 of CPC for taking legal representatives of
the sole deceased appellant on record.
In the aforesaid application, it is pleaded that the appellant-
Jainarain Jat died on 19.05.2016, therefore, looking to the facts
mentioned therein, the application be allowed and the legal
representatives of sole deceased appellant be taken on record.
An another application bearing Inward No.2/19 dt.
14.11.2019 has also been filed by the learned counsel appearing for
the LRs. of sole deceased appellant- Jainarain Jat under Section 5 of the
(2 of 3) [CSA-74/2012]
Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay in filing the aforesaid
application.
In the said application, it is pleaded that the appellant -
Jainarain Jat had died on 19.05.2016 and the fact of filing the appeal
was not in the knowledge of present applicants-appellants, therefore,
they could not take any step for taking themselves on record. Hence,
the application may be allowed and the delay in filing the aforesaid
application be condoned.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.2 & 3,
while opposing the aforesaid application, submits that during pendency
of the appeal, respondent No.1 - Hari Narain Sharma has also died on
04.07.2020 and the legal representatives of appellant have not taken
any step for taking the respective legal representatives on record.
Heard and perused the material available on record.
So far as application bearing Inward No.2/19 dt.
14.11.2019 is concerned, the appellant - Jainarain Jat died on
19.05.2016 and his legal representatives have not taken any step for
bringing them on record within a prescribed period of limitation and the
delay explained by the legal representatives of sole deceased appellant-
Jainarain Jat in their application, is not justified.
In the present case, the application under Section 5 of
Limitation Act has been filed after an inordinate delay of above three
years and the applicants have failed to make out any sufficient cause
for condoning the delay in filing the aforesaid 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
(3 of 3) [CSA-74/2012]
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 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 application cannot be said to be bonafide or
unintentional. There is no justification in condoning the inordinate delay
of above three years in filing the application.
Accordingly, application bearing Inward No.2/2019 filed
under Section 5 of Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing
the application is dismissed.
Consequent upon dismissal of application under Section 5 of
the Limitation Act, the application bearing Inward No.1/19 for taking
legal representatives of sole deceased appellant, is also dismissed
being time barred.
In view of above, the appeal stands abated.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA),J.
PAYAL/14
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
