Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Babu Lal Nahata vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 22 November, 2023
Bench: Arun Bhansali, Rajendra Prakash Soni
[2023:RJ-JD:40100-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 621/2019
1. Babu Lal Nahata S/o Late Shri Ghamandi Ram Nahata,
Aged About 71 Years, B/c Oswal (Nahata), Resident Of
Bidasar, Distt. Churu (Raj.).
2. Madan Lal Nahata S/o Late Shri Ghamandi Ram Nahata,,
Aged About 66 Years, B/c Oswal (Nahata), Resident Of
Bidasar, Tehsil Bidasar, District Churu (Raj.). Presently
Residing At 8, Commissariat Road, Hastings, Kolkata- 700
022.
Through- Their General Power Of Attorney-
Vikash Nahata S/o Shri Babu Lal Nahata, Aged About 42
Years, Resident Of Bidasar, Tehsil Bidasar, District Churu
(Raj.) And Presently Residing At Adityaman Co-Operative
Housing Society Ltd., Flat No. 1, 4, Kanti Nagar,
Samanpuri Road, J.b. Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai
(Mah.)- 400 059.
----Appellants
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Chief Secretary,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).
2. Secretary, Revenue Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).
3. District Collector, Churu (Raj.).
4. Tehsildar, Bidasar, District Churu (Raj.).
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. S.P. Joshi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Harshit Burani
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI
Order
22/11/2023
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants aggrieved by the
order dated 30.10.2017 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition
[2023:RJ-JD:40100-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-621/2019]
No.13563/2017, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the
writ petition filed by the petitioner in limine.
2. Office has reported that the appeal is barred by 234 days.
3. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been
filed seeking condonation of delay.
4. The contentions made in the application inter-alia read as
under:-
"2. That thereafter the certified copy of the
judgment was obtained by the learned counsel for the
applicants/appellants and on his turn he expressed his
opinion and advised to file special appeal against the
said judgment.
3. That however, on account of pre-occupation of
the appellants they would not come to know about the
same for a long as they remained busy in their works.
However, when they came to know about the said
judgment they immediately contacted their counsel
who again advised to prefer a special appeal. On this
necessary arrangements were made towards the fee
of the learned counsel, and so also, for collecting
some information as desired by him. Ultimately they
special appeal was prepared and immediately
thereafter they filed the same through his counsel
before this Hon'ble Court.
4. That from the submissions made hereinabove
there is no deliberately and/or intentional delay in
filing the appeal and the delay so caused is quite bona
fide and same thus same deserves to be condoned in
the interest of justice. That besides certain important
law points are also involved in the case and therefore,
also the bona fide delay so caused in filing the appeal
deserves to be condoned."
5. Based on the above averments delay of 234 days is sought
to be explained.
6. Reply to the application has been filed inter-alia contesting
the same and praying that the application be dismissed.
[2023:RJ-JD:40100-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-621/2019]
7. Counsel for the appellants made submissions that looking to
the subject-matter of the petition, the delay of 234 days be
condoned.
8. Counsel for the respondents made submissions that no case
is made out seeking condonation huge delay of 234 days and,
therefore, the application be dismissed.
9. We have considered submissions made by the learned
counsel for the parties and perused the material available on
record.
10. The contents of the application seeking condonation of delay,
as quoted hereinbefore clearly suggest that the appellants had
filed the appeal at their leisure, the limitation for filing the appeal
is 30 days and the same has been filed with the delay of 234 days.
11. The submissions made i.e. as appellants were busy with their
own work, they could not contact their counsel for filing the
appeal, clearly suggests that filing of the present appeal
essentially has been taken as a luxury compared to the work in
which the appellants were involved.
12. The indications made in the application do not make out
sufficient cause for preferring the appeal with a delay of 234 days.
13. In view of the above discussion, no case is made out for
delay of 234 days in filing the appeal. The application is dismissed.
Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed.
(RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI),J (ARUN BHANSALI),J
62-Payal/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
