Lrs Of Kaushlya Devi vs Chetan Ram Alias Chetan Prasad ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 6761 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Lrs Of Kaushlya Devi vs Chetan Ram Alias Chetan Prasad ... on 7 February, 2025

Author: Rekha Borana

Bench: Rekha Borana

[2025:RJ-JD:7925]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                             JODHPUR
               S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 17/2025

1.    Kaushlya Devi, W/o Shiv Dayal R/o Ganthiya, Tehsil Merta
      Dist. Naguar Through Lrs.
1/1. Bhanwari Devi D/o Shiv Dayal, W/o Ram Swaroop R/o
      Ganthiya, Tehsil Merta Dist. Nagaur Present Add. Ren,
      Tehsil Merta Dist. Nagaur,raj.
                                                 ----Appellant
                              Versus
Chetan Ram Alias Chetan Prasad S/o Ram Chandra, R/o
Ganthiya, Tehsil Merta Dist. Nagaur
                                              ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)              :      Mr. C.P. Soni with
                                     Ms. Karunanidhi Vyas
                                     Mr. Sharad Vyas


                HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

07/02/2025

1. The present second appeal has been filed aggrieved of the

judgment and decree dated 22.02.2024 passed by District Judge,

Merta in Civil First Appeal No.11/2022 (C.I.S. No.11/2022)

whereby the judgment and decree dated 22.01.2014 passed by

Civil Judge (Senior Division), Merta in Civil Original Suit

No.04/2013 has been affirmed.

2. Vide judgment and decree dated 22.01.2014, the learned

Trial Court decreed the suit for specific performance and

permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff. Vide impugned

order dated 22.04.2024, the First Appellate Court dismissed the

appeal as preferred by the defendant only on the count of

limitation and did not enter into the merits of the matter.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned

First Appellate Court ought to have considered the merits of the

case and should not have dismissed the appeal only on the count

of limitation.

[2025:RJ-JD:7925] (2 of 2) [CSA-17/2025]

4. Heard the counsel and perused the material available on

record.

5. A bare perusal of the record reveals that the execution

proceedings qua decree dated 22.01.2014 were initiated by the

plaintiff in the year 2014 itself.

As per the order sheets of the execution proceedings placed

on record by counsel today, the appellant-defendant was served in

the said execution proceedings way back in the year 2016. After

being served, time was sought on behalf of her counsel for years.

The First Appeal in question was filed in the year 2022.

6. In view of the above fact, it cannot be presumed that the

appellant was not aware of the judgment and decree dated

22.01.2014 till the year 2022. The appellant, despite being served

in the execution proceedings in the year 2016 and even pursuing

the said proceedings, did not choose to challenge the decree dated

22.01.2014 till the year 2022. It cannot therefore be held that the

delay caused in filing the first appeal was bonafide or

unintentional. The learned First Appellate Court rightly dismissed

the appeal on the count of limitation.

7. No case for interference is made out. The present second

appeal is hence, dismissed.

8. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand

disposed of.

(REKHA BORANA),J 218-AbhishekK/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)