SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(RAJ) 30

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI, J
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
SMT. LEELA ALIAS KUKI – Respondent
CRES / 421 / 2024



Advocates:
Mr. Mahesh Thanvi, Mr. Mudit Vaishnav

The court allowed the condonation of a 61-day delay in filing a restoration application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, emphasizing justice.

Headnote:(A) Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Condonation of delay - Application for condonation of delay of 61 days in filing restoration application allowed - Delay condoned in the interest of justice. (Paras 5, 7)

(B) Restoration of appeal - Misc. appeal dismissed in default due to non-compliance with peremptory order - Appeal restored upon payment of costs. (Paras 6, 7)

Facts of the case:
The applicant sought to restore a misc. appeal dismissed in default for non-compliance with a court order. The delay of 61 days in filing the restoration application was condoned.

Findings of Court:
The court allowed the restoration application and ordered the appeal to be restored upon payment of costs.

Issues: The main issue was whether the delay in filing the restoration application could be condoned.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the delay was condoned for the interest of justice, and the restoration of the appeal was granted with conditions.

Result: The Civil Misc. Appeal bearing SBCMA No.1671/2016 is ordered to be restored.

ORDER :

NUPUR BHATI, J.

1. Issue notice of application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to the respondents.

2. Mr. Mudit Vaishnav, learned counsel accepts notices on behalf of the respondent-claimants.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant/appellant submits that service of notice of respondent Nos.6 and 7 may be dispensed with. At the risk and cost of learned counsel for the applicant/appellant, service of notice of respondent Nos.6 and 7 is dispensed with.

4. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 61 days in filing the restoration application has been filed.

5. For the reasons indicted in the application, the same is allowed. The delay in filing the restoration application is condoned. 6. The present restoration application has been filed by the applicant seeking restoration of the misc. appeal bearing SBCMA No.1671/2016, which was dismissed in default vide order dated 01.07.2024 on account of non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 22.04.2024 passed by this Court.

7. Having considered the grounds as set out in the restoration application and in the interest of justice, the same is allowed and learned counsel for the respondents has no objection in restoration of the appeal. The Civil Misc. Appeal bearing SBCMA No.1671/2016, is ordered to be restored to its original number, subject to the condition that the applicant/appellant shall deposit the cost of Rs.3,000/- before the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Jodhpur.

8. List the appeal in next week, as prayed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top