Back
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Sangeet Lodha, Vinit Kumar Mathur, JJ.
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank Through Its Chairman - Appellant
Versus
Appellate Authority Under Payment of Gratuity Act & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Restoration No. 106 of 2021
Decided On : 24-09-2021
RESTORATION - APPEAL - The court allowed the restoration application for a special appeal that was previously dismissed due to the applicant's inadvertent failure to rectify defects within the stipulated time. The court emphasized the importance of justice and permitted the appeal to be restored, indicating a flexible approach to procedural compliance when justified.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant filed a restoration application for a special appeal that was dismissed due to the failure to remove defects in a timely manner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defects had mostly been rectified and that an application for waiver of the remaining defects had been submitted. The court prioritized the interest of justice in its decision.
Issues: Whether the restoration application should be granted despite the previous dismissal due to procedural defects.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that inadvertent errors should not preclude access to justice, especially when the applicant has taken steps to rectify the situation.
Result: The restoration application was allowed, and the special appeal was restored to its original number for further proceedings.
JUDGMENT
1. This restoration application has been filed by the applicant for restoration of D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.645/2020, which stands dismissed in terms of peremptory order dated 22.01.2021 passed by this Court.
2. Learned counsel submits that on account of inadvertent error on his part, the defects could not be removed within the stipulated time. It is submitted that now, the most of the defects have been removed and the defects which could not be removed, the petitioner has preferred an application for waiver of the same.
3. In this view of the matter, in the interest of justice, the restoration application is allowed. The special appeal is restored to its original number, which may be listed for orders on application already filed by the petitioner.
AI
The court established that procedural defects can be overlooked in the interest of justice, allowing for restoration of appeals when rectification efforts are made.
The court established that appeals dismissed for want of prosecution can be restored if sufficient grounds are presented, emphasizing the principle of fair opportunity to litigants.
The court invoked the inherent powers under Section 151 CPC to allow the restoration application and held that the application for restoration was maintainable under Order IX Rule 4 CPC.
The court established that substantial delays in restoration applications require rigorous justification, ensuring all parties are afforded the opportunity to participate and contest effectively.
Approaching the court expeditiously and reluctance to condone unexplained delays and inordinate laches in seeking remedies.
Point of Law - It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of court Section 5 of Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within ....
Restoration of appeals based on compliance with court orders is upheld if valid reasons are presented.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
