Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd vs Prakash Chand Pandya ... on 4 August, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:34362]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civ. Leave To Appeal No. 22/2025
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Ajmer Divisional Office, Plot No Sp
42, Mtc Industrial Area, Daural Ajmer- 305003, Through Its
Authorized Officer Mr. Lakshya Khandelwal Working As Senior
Manager (Retail Sales), Ajemr Divisional Office, Indain Oil
Corporation Ltd.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Prakash Chand Pandya S/o Late Shri Mohannal Ji Pandya,
Bachchraj Road, Near Rahu Gate, Ladnun, District Nagaur,
Rajasthan.
2. Chena Ram S/o Devkaran Bidiyasar, Shanker Colony,
Behind Government Hospital, Ward No 5, Ladnun, District
Nagaur.
3. Dharmaveer S/o Chena Ram, Aged About 20 Years,
Shanker Colony Behind Government Hospital Ward No 5
Ladnun District Nagaur
4. Miss Maya D/o Chena Ram, Aged About 22 Years,
Shanker Colony Behind Government Hospital Ward No 5
Ladnun District Nagaur
5. Miss Poonam D/o Saheed Moola Ram, Village Dhimsari
Tehsil Ladnun District Nagaur At Present Residing With
Her Grandmother Sarju Devi W/o Late Bhanwara Ram
Manda, R/o Dhingsari, Tehsil Ladnun District Nagaur
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Ms. Akshiti Singhvi
For Respondent(s) : -
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
04/08/2025
1. The instant leave to appeal under Section 96 read with
Section 151 of the CPC is preferred seeking leave to prefer an
[2025:RJ-JD:34362] (2 of 4) [CLA-22/2025]
appeal against the judgment and decree dated 23.07.2018 passed
by the learned Additional District Judge, Deedwana in Civil Original
Suit No.5/2015 wherein the appellant has been imposed the
liability to make payment of Rs. 5,60,000/- and Rs. 3,00,000/-
along with 6% interest rate from 05.04.2007 and 19.07.2010
respectively to the respondent No.1 evn though the appellant was
not a party to the suit.
2. The leave petitioner was admittedly not a party to the
original suit. It is an undisputed fact that no opportunity of
hearing was afforded to it. However, the judgment and decree
rendered therein specifically direct recovery and coercive action
against the present applicant. The leave to appeal petition is
reported to have been filed with a delay of 2472 days.
3. I have heard learned counsel Ms. Akshiti Singhvi and
considered her submissions to the effect that the applicant had no
knowledge of the pendency or the outcome of the said suit. The
factum of passing of the decree, adverse to its interest, came to
light only upon receipt of notice in the execution proceedings.
Immediately thereafter, the company obtained certified copies of
the relevant documents, consulted with its counsel, and with due
diligence, approached this Court seeking leave to challenge the
impugned decree.
3.1 It is a settled proposition of law that the law of limitation
governs the parties to litigation, and limitation is to be reckoned
from the date the cause of action or knowledge of the adverse
order accrues. Since the petitioner was not arrayed as a party to
the proceedings and became aware of the judgment and decree
[2025:RJ-JD:34362] (3 of 4) [CLA-22/2025]
only upon initiation of execution, the delay must be reckoned from
the date of such knowledge.
3.2 In the present case, it has been brought on record that the
knowledge of the impugned decree was received only recently.
The petitioner acted promptly and diligently upon gaining such
knowledge, and thus, the applicability of limitation should not
operate to its detriment.
3.3 The law on condonation of delay is not to be applied
pedantically, but with a pragmatic and justice-oriented approach.
Since the petitioner was neither heard nor made a party to the
suit proceedings, this Court is of the view that in the interest of
justice, a liberal view ought to be adopted.
4. Accordingly, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act is allowed. The delay of 2472 days in filing the leave to appeal
petition stands condoned, and the same is directed to be treated
as within limitation.
5. Heard on the leave to appeal.
6. Having considered the peculiar facts and circumstances of
the case, and the fact that the decree adversely affects the rights
of the petitioner who was not afforded an opportunity of hearing,
this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner ought to be
granted an opportunity to challenge the said judgment and
decree. There appear substantial and arguable grounds for
preferring an appeal against the judgment and decree dated
23.07.2018 passed by the learned Additional District Judge,
Deedwana, in Civil Original Suit No. 5/2015.
[2025:RJ-JD:34362] (4 of 4) [CLA-22/2025]
7. Accordingly, leave is granted. The memo of appeal tagged
with the leave petition be registered as a regular first appeal.
8. List the same for consideration before this Court on
07.08.2025.
(FARJAND ALI),J
248-Pramod/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
