Rajasthan High Court
Ramulal Son Of Late Harikishan vs Buniyadi Vikas Grah Nirman ... on 27 January, 2023
Bench: Chandra Kumar Songara
[2023/RJJP/000613]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.148/2023
1. Ramulal son of Late Harikishan, Resident of Z Block,
Bandhawalo Ki Dhani, Keshopura, Tehsil Sanganer, District
Jaipur.
2. Kaluram Sharma son of Late Harikishan, Resident of Z Block,
Bandhawalo Ki Dhani, Keshopura, Tehsil Sanganer, District
Jaipur.
3. Trilok Chand Sharma son of Late Harikishan, Resident of Z
Block, Bandhawalo Ki Dhani, Keshopura, Tehsil Sanganer,
District Jaipur.
4. Chhuttan Lal Sharma son of Late Harikishan, Resident of Z
Block, Bandhawalo Ki Dhani, Keshopura, Tehsil Sanganer,
District Jaipur.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Buniyadi Vikas Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd., through its
Director Jagdish Kumar Bhatt (Regd No. 2768/L), Registered
Office-Plot No. 30, Satyavatika, Kartarpura, Jaipur.
___Applicant-respondent
2. Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur.
3. Deputy Commissioner Zone 8, Jaipur Development Authority,
Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Ms. Pallavi Mehta, Advocate
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA
Order
27/01/2023 :
The appeal under Section 54 readwith Order 43 Rule 1 & 2
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been preferred on behalf of the
appellants against the impugned order dated 30.01.2016 passed by the
Court of Senior Civil Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, in Civil
[2023/RJJP/000613] (2 of 3) [CMA-148/2023]
Application No.05/2016, whereby the said Court allowed the application
filed by respondent No.1 and closed the proceedings.
An application bearing No.63/2013 has also been preferred
on behalf of the applicants-appellants under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
In the said application, it is pleaded that under the Land
Acquisition Act an award for acquiring Khasra No.382 (382/1) has been
passed in the name of Khatedar Ladu and the compensation to this
effect in the name of Khatedar vide cheque has also been deposited
with the learned Tribunal, hence, Khatedar or his heirs were necessary
parties to the proceedings. The learned tribunal failed to make them
parties to the proceedings and without issuing notices to them passed
the impugned order dated 30.01.2016. The fact of passing aforesaid
order was not in the knowledge of present applicants-appellants,
therefore, the application may be allowed and the delay in filing the
appeal be condoned.
Heard and 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 2442-days &
the delay explained by the applicants is not justified and they have
failed to make out any sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing
the appeal, therefore, the application seeking condonation of delay of
2442-days in fling the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
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
[2023/RJJP/000613] (3 of 3) [CMA-148/2023]
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 appeal cannot be said to be bonafide or
unintentional. There is no justification in condoning the inordinate delay
of 2442-days in filing the appeal.
Accordingly, application filed under Section 5 of Limitation
Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal is dismissed.
Consequent upon dismissal of application under Section 5 of
the Limitation Act, the appeal filed on behalf of the appellants is also
dismissed being time bared.
Stay application as well as application for grant of leave to
file the appeal also stand disposed of.
(CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA),J.
Satyendra-ashok/2
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
