Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ajmer V.V.N. Ltd. And Anr vs Narayan Lal And Ors. (2025:Rj-Jd:9445) on 17 February, 2025
Author: Birendra Kumar
Bench: Birendra Kumar
[2025:RJ-JD:9445]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 264/2018
1. Ajmer Viduyat Vitran Nigam Ltd Through Chairman,
Through Aen Avvnltd Parsad Distt Udaipur Raj.
2. Avvnltd Through Aen Parsad, Udaipur Raj.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Narayan Lal S/o Mangla Ji Meena
2. Prakash S/o Narayan Lal Meena, Minor Through Guardian
Father Narayan Lal Meena
3. Ms Amba D/o Narayan Lal Meena, Minor Through
Guardian Father Narayan Lal Meena
4. Ms Artika D/o Narayanlal Meena, Minor Through Guardian
Father Narayan Lal Meena
5. Rakesh S/o Narayanlal Meena, Minor, Through Guardian
Father Narayanlal Meena. All R/o Parai Post Parsad, Distt
Udaipur Raj
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Amit Mehta.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaju Singh.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR
Order
17/02/2025
1. This appeal is barred by limitation of 124 days.
2. In the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act,
the appellants stated as follows:-
"The certified copy of the order was obtained by the
appellants and after obtaining the same, entire
formalities are required to be done through the process
as different stages are there from one authority to
another higher authority and then to other higher
authority and ultimately it goes to Corporate office and
[2025:RJ-JD:9445] (2 of 4) [CFA-264/2018]
after sanction being given, it goes to the legal
department for examining the same. The legal
department after examining from every angel, proceeds
for filing an appeal and contacts the panel lawyer.
However, after panel lawyer being appointed, the appeal
was drafted and being presented today itself only.
Therefore this present appeal be treated to have been
filed within time as whatever delay has been caused that
is all bonafide.
That in the above facts and circumstances of the
case, there has been some delay in filing this appeal, is
not deliberate nor intentional but has been caused due to
departmental process and procedure."
3. On consideration of that application, a Bench of this Court
vide order dated 18.5.2018, allowed an opportunity to the
appellants to explain the contents of the application viz-a-viz the
affidavit filed by Mr. Anil Mehta, Advocate.
4. In pursuance of that order, today, a fresh application under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed, which is being
reproduced below:-
"The appellants most respectfully submit as under;
That the appellants have challenged the judgment
and decree passed by the learned ADJ, Udaipur.
The certified copy of the order was obtained by the
appellants & after obtaining the same, entire formalities
are required to be done through the process as different
stages are there from one authority to another higher
authority & then to other higher authority & ultimately it
goes to Corporate Office & after sanction being given, it
goes to the legal department for examining the same.
The legal department after examining from every angel,
proceeds for filing an appeal & contacts the panel lawyer.
However panel lawyer being appointed, the appeal was
draftedand presented. Therefore this present appeal be
treated to have been filed within time as whatever delay
[2025:RJ-JD:9445] (3 of 4) [CFA-264/2018]
has been caused that is all bonafide.
That in the above facts & circumstances of the
case, there has been some delay in filing this appeal, is
not deliberate nor intentional but has been caused due to
departmental process & procedure.
That in the present appeal, the same is on the
question of law & facts both, the appellants have a very
strong prima facie case in their favour and all chances
are there to succeed ultimate and is likely to be allowed
by this Hon'ble Court. Therefore it is in the interest of
justice, the delay in filing the appeal be condoned.
It is therefore very humbly & respectfully prayed
that this application may kindly be allowed and delay in
filing the appeal may kindly be condoned in the interest
of justice.
Any other order which this Hon'ble Court deems
just & proper in the facts & circumstances of the case be
passed in favour of the appellant."
5. On bare perusal of both the applications, it is evident that
there is no mention that on which date certified copy of the
impugned award was obtained. The details of the formalities and
date of movement of the file and release of the file from a
particular stage as well as time taken for release of the file are not
disclosed. As such the explanation still remains vague one.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that even delay
of more than 124 days have been condoned in certain cases and
the basic principle is that the delay should not be allowed to come
in the way of granting substantial justice after opportunity of
hearing by the parties.
7. In State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Bherulal,
reported in (2020) 10 SCC 654, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that:-
[2025:RJ-JD:9445] (4 of 4) [CFA-264/2018]
"Unless officer(s) concerned have reasonable and
acceptable explanation for delay and there was bona
fide effort, there is no need to accept usual
explanation that file was kept pending for several
months/years due to considerable degree of
procedural red tape in process - Government
departments are under a special obligation to ensure
that they perform their duties with diligence and
commitment- Condonation of delay is an exception
and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for
government departments."
8. No doubt, a delay of longer period, if satisfactorily explained
would be a good reason for condonation of delay but in the case
on hand, there is no satisfactory explanation for condonation of
delay.
9. Hence, prayer for condonation of delay is refused and appeal
stands dismissed.
10. All applications stand disposed of.
(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J
44-sumer/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
