Nand Lal And Another vs Nanu Ram (2023:Rj-Jp:25401)
2023 Latest Caselaw 5248 Raj/2

[2023:RJ-JP:25401]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

            S.B. Civil Restoration Application No. 21/2015
                                           In
                 S. B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.2399/2012

1. Nand Lal S/o Shri Richhpal Nehra, age about 51 years, R/o
Nehra Ki Dhani, Tan Chanana, Tehsil Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu.
2.    Satyveer S/o Shri Prahlad Singh, age about 43 years, R/o
Manota Jatan, Tehsil Khetri, District Jhunjhunu.
                                                       ----Petitioners/Appellants
                                        Versus
1. Nanu Ram S/o Shri Malaram, R/o Nijampura, Tehsil Chirawa,
District Jhunjhunu.
2.    The    Oriental     Insurance         Company          Ltd.,   Station       Road,
Jhunjhunu.
                                                                     ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. Keshav Agrwal
For Respondent(s)            :     -


            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
                                        Order
22/09/2023

1. The present restoration application has been filed by the

appellants - non-claimants against the order dated 13.09.2013

passed by this Court in SB Civil Misc. Appeal No.2399/2012

whereby the appeal has been dismissed for non-prosecution by

the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) vide order dated 24.10.2013.

2. The restoration application is barred by 37 days and an

application has also been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation

Act for condondation of delay.

3. While considering the restoration application, I have

examined the merit of the appeal also.

4. The present appeal has been filed being aggrieved by the

order dated 01.02.2012 passed by the learned Motor Accident

[2023:RJ-JP:25401] (2 of 3) [CRES-21/2015]

Claims Tribunal, Jhunjhunu whereby the claim petition of claimant

- respondent No.1 - Nanuram has been partly allowed and the

learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- and directed

appellants Nos.1 - Nandlal and No.2 - Satyveer to pay the same

jointly and severally.

5. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the claimant -

respondent No.1 - Nanuram met with an accident and sustained

injuries and thus, he filed a claim petition before the learned

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhunjhunu for compensation.

6. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 01.02.2012 the

non-claimants - Nandlal and Satyeer preferred the present misc.

appeal.

7. It is relevant to mention here that the civil misc. appeal was

time barred by 30 days and no application under Section 5 of the

Limitation Act has been filed for condoning the delay. The Office

had pointed out this defect and other defects also.

8. Vide order dated 13.09.2013, this Court passed a

peremptory order and directed the appellants to remove the

defects.

9. Due to non-compliance of aforesaid order dated 13.09.2013,

the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) dismissed the appeal for

non-prosecution vide order dated 24.10.2013.

10. Thereafter, the present restoration application was filed to

recall the order dated 13.09.2013, which is also time barred by 37

days.

11. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the

appellants are desirous to prosecute the present appeal and due

to inadvertence of learned counsel, the parties should not suffer.

[2023:RJ-JP:25401] (3 of 3) [CRES-21/2015]

12. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

13. The restoration application is reported to be barred by

limitation for 37 days.

14. An application seeking condondation of delay in filing the

restoration application has been filed, however, no plausible

explanation has been given for filing the application so belatedly.

15. The civil misc. appeal is also reported to be barred by

limitation for 30 days, but no application under Section 5 of the

Limitation Act has been filed.

16. The learned Tribunal has awarded only a meager sum of

Rs.25,000/- to claimant - Nanuram for the injuries suffered by

him.

17. The appeal was filed by the non-claimants - Nandlal and

Satyaveer in the year 2012 without moving any application under

Section 5 of the Limitation Act and thereafter when the appeal

was dismissed for non-prosecution, they woke up from slumber

and filed the restoration application, which is also time barred.

18. In view of this matter, the cause sought by the appellants in

their appeal was not sustainable and such prayer does not call for

any interference by this Court.

19. In view of the discussions above, I am of the view that the

restoration application lacks merit.

20. Hence, the restoration application; application under Section

5 of the Limitation Act and also the appeal are, hereby, dismissed.

(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J

A. ARORA /-81.

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)