Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Subhash Singh vs Dinesh Kumar Bafna (2025:Rj-Jd:6807) on 4 February, 2025
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2025:RJ-JD:6807]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1611/2023
1. Subhash Singh S/o Jethu Singh, Aged About 41 Years, By
Caste Rajput, Resident Of Pungalsar, Tehsil Dungargarh,
District Bikaner. (Driver)
2. Kailash Chandra Solanki S/o Ramkishan Solanki, Aged
About 63 Years, Resident Of Old Ginnani, Bagwano Ka
Mohalla, Post And District Bikaner. (Regd. Owner )
----Appellants
Versus
1. Dinesh Kumar Bafna S/o Govindlal Bafna (Jain), Resident
Of 124/2, Raja Silk House Building, Nagarthpet Near
Kamla Temple, Bengalore (Karnataka)
2. The New India Insurance Company Limited, 9, Sadul
Colony, Near Tulsi Circle, Bikaner. (Insurer)
----Respondents
and
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1628/2023
1. Subhash Singh S/o Jethu Singh, Aged About 41 Years,
By Caste - Rajput, Resident Of Pungalsar, Tehsil -
Dungargarh, District - Bikaner. (Driver)
2. Kailash Chand Solanki S/o Ramkishan Solanki, Aged
About 63 Years, Resident Of Old Ginnani, Bagwano Ka
Mohalla, Post And District - Bikaner. (Registered Owner)
----Appellants
Versus
1. Dinesh Kumar Bafna S/o Govindlal Bafna (Jain),
Resident Of 124/2, Raja Silk House Building, Nagarthpet
Near Kalma Temple, Bengalore (Karnataka) (Claimants)
2. Dhruv S/o Dinesh Kumar Bafna (Jain), Minor Through
Natural Guardian And Father Dinesh Kumar, Resident Of
124/2, Raja Silk House Building, Nagarthpet Near Kalma
Temple, Bengalore (Karnataka) (Claimants)
3. Meet S/o Dinesh Kumar, Minor Through Natural
Guardian And Father Dinesh Kumar, Resident Of 124/2,
Raja Silk House Building, Nagarthpet Near Kalma
Temple, Bengalore (Karnataka) (Claimants)
(Downloaded on 04/02/2025 at 09:59:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:6807] (2 of 3) [CMA-1611/2023]
4. The New India Insurance Company Limited, 9, Sadul
Colony, Near Tulsi Circle, Bikaner. (Insurer)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1693/2023
1. Subhash Singh S/o Jethu Singh, Aged About 41 Years,
By Caste Rajput, Resident Of Pungalsar, Tehsil
Dungargarh, District Bikaner. (Driver)
2. Kailash Chand Solanki S/o Ramkishan Solanki, Aged
About 63 Years, Resident Of Old Ginnani, Bagwano Ka
Mohalla, Post And District Bikaner. (Regd. Owner)
----Appellants
Versus
1. Dinesh Kumar Bafna S/o Govindlal Bafna (Jain),
Resident Of 124/2, Raja Silk House Building, Nagarthpet
Near Kalma Temple, Bengalore (Karnataka)
2. The New India Insurance Company Limited, 9, Sadul
Colony, Near Tulsi Circle, Bikaner. (Insurer)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : None present
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
04/02/2025
1. The present appeals arise out of the common judgment and
award dated 11.01.2016.
2. The appeals were filed on 21.08.2023 and at that point of
time, several defects including the non-filing of the compensation
certificate in terms of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 were pointed out
by the office.
3. The appeals are also reported to be barred by more than two
thousand days, although the applications under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act have been filed in the aforementioned appeals.
[2025:RJ-JD:6807] (3 of 3) [CMA-1611/2023]
4. On 04.11.2023, time until 28.11.2023 was granted to
counsel for the appellants to cure the defects. However, the same
were not removed.
5. On 07.05.2024, none appeared for the appellants and the
last opportunity of two weeks was granted by the Court to learned
counsel for the appellants to remove the defects.
6. On 08.01.2025 also, none appeared for the appellants when
the matter was listed before the Court.
7. However, on the said date, last opportunity of three weeks
was granted to learned counsel for the appellants to file the
compensation certificate. On that date, it was observed that if the
same is not filed within the stipulated period, the appeals be listed
before the Court for dismissal on 03.02.2025.
8. In pursuance to the order dated 08.01.2025, the matters
were listed yesterday i.e. 03.02.2025. Yesterday too, none
appeared for the appellants and the matters were directed to be
listed today.
9. Today also, none has appeared for the appellants and the
defects as pointed out by the office have also not been cured.
10. In view of the above, the present appeals are dismissed in
non-compliance as well as in non-prosecution.
11. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
172,173,174-KashishS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
