Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Devi Lal vs Utamaram (2025:Rj-Jd:43684) on 3 October, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:43684]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 768/2025
Devi Lal S/o Shri Bhadar Ram, Aged About 76 Years, Resident Of
Chak 1 Djm 48 Gba Sriganganagar Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
1. Utamaram S/o Shri Kojaram, Resident Of Chak 20 Rb
Tehsil Raisinghnagar District Sriganganagar
2. Kaluram S/o Shri Kojaram, Resident Of Chak 20 Rb Tehsil
Raisinghnagar District Sriganganagar
3. Dhannaram S/o Sri Kojaram, Resident Of Chak 20 Rb
Tehsil Raisinghnagar District Sriganganagar
4. Amararam S/o Sri Kojaram, Resident Of Chak 20 Rb
Tehsil Raisinghnagar District Sriganganagar
5. Jamna Devi D/o Sri Kojaram, Wife Of Sri Lalchand
Resident Of Chak Dd Tehsil Ghadsana District Sri
Ganganagar
6. Manki Devi D/o Shri Kojaram, Wife Of Shri Kanaram
Resident Of Chak 71 Np Tehsil Raisinghnagar Distri Ct
Sriganganagar
7. Ramswaroop S/o Shri Kaluram, Resident Of 73 Np Tehsil
Raisinghnagar District Sri Ganganagar
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : None Present
For Respondent(s) : -
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
03/10/2025
1. The instant appeal has been directed against the judgment
and decree dated 04.12.2017 passed by the learned Additional
District Judge, Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar whereby the
suit filed by the appellant seeking specific performance of the
agreement has been dismissed. As per the office report, there is a
delay of 2,679 days in filing of the appeal though an application
(Uploaded on 07/10/2025 at 01:06:40 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:43684] (2 of 2) [CFA-768/2025]
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been moved seeking
condonation of delay.
2. None present for the appellant. It is noticed that the suit
proceeding was contested by a lawyer on behalf of the appellant.
The impugned judgment and decree was passed in the presence of
his lawyer. In the application filed under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, a very lame excuse has been taken saying that the
appellant is an illiterate person and he was not informed by his
lawyer. When he visited the office of local advocate to know the
status of the case, only upon he was informed about the dismissal
of the suit. No date, day and time has been specified as to when
the appellant went to seek information from his counsel and when
he was informed about the dismissal of the suit. The impugned
judgment and decree was passed on 04.12.2017 and the appeal
came to be submitted in this Court on 12.07.2025. It cannot be
accepted that a party shall contact to his lawyer after seven years
to know the status of the case. No reasonable and cogent reasons
have been assigned which may satisfy sufficiency of cause for the
appellant by which he prevented from filing the appeal within the
stipulated period. Thus, the application under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act is dismissed and as a consequence of which, the
instant appeal is dismissed.
3. Pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed.
(FARJAND ALI),J
239-divya/-
(Uploaded on 07/10/2025 at 01:06:40 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
