The court upheld the dismissal of a petition for recalling an order due to lack of merit and failure to provide justifiable grounds for delay, emphasizing adherence to procedural timelines.

ORDER :

1. Petitioner through the medium of the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks quashment of order dated 19.12.2024 passed by the Respondent No. 2, by virtue of which the application for recalling of order dated 16.10.2023 in case titled, “Rajinder Kumar Vs. State & Ors.” has been dismissed, which according to learned counsel for the petitioner, is illegal and against the mandate of law.

2. The short controversy involved in the instant petition is that the petitioner had filed an application for setting aside abatement of the original appeal vide order dated 03.01.2013, which was pending adjudication before the Deputy Commissioner Jammu and the same was subsequently transferred to Respondent No. 2-Regional Director Survey and Land Records (with powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms), Udhampur, who dismissed the same vide order dated16.10.2023 for non-prosecution on behalf of the petitioner.

3. Mr. Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the court below has ignored the cause projected by the petitioner before it, as the petitioner met with the serious accident, as a consequence whereof, the petitioner had to undergo a surgery in the nature of exploratory laparatomy with jejunoileal anastomosis, wherein multiple perforated segment of intestine were removed, which made the petitioner to remain confined to bed for a period of 06 months and as per the learned counsel, this aspect of the matter is not appreciated by the court below.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the Court below has misinterpreted Article 122 of the Limitation Act and has wrongly applied the same in the instant case, as the Court below has treated the application for recalling of order dated 16.10.2023 as an application for restoration, which according to him is against the scheme of Limitation Act.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the material available on record.

6. The record reveals that the applicant/petitioner in the application filed by him before Respondent No. 2, had only raised the issue of a lack of effective Communication between the applicant and his counsel as the only basis for filing of the instant case. The ground urged by the applicant in the said application was that on 04.03.2022, he met with an accident, in which he suffered serious injuries and he underwent a surgery, due to which he was confined to bed for six months. Thus, he could not contact his counsel to know about the progress of his case. The respondent No. 2 while perusing the record has in his order, indicated that the petitioner was admitted in the Government Medical College, Jammu on 04.03.2022 and was discharged on 21.03.2022, which makes it clear that he was admitted for 18 days.

7. While further perusing the record, the respondent No. 2 has supplemented that the applicant after his discharge from the Hospital, has appeared in person before the Court of Additional Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur on 18.10.2022 and 19.11.2022. Thus, this Court is in agreement with the finding recorded by the respondent No. 2 and is not satisfied with the plea taken by the petitioner/applicant that he did not come into the contact of his counsel on account of aforementioned circumstances and resultantly, was not able to appear before the respondent No. 2. The applicant/petitioner was discharged from the GMC, Jammu on 21.03.2022, whereas the fact remains that he has preferred the said application on 11.03.2024.

8. It has been further argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the applicant has requested his counsel that due to his ill health, he would not be able to cause appearance before this Hon’ble Court on each and every hearing and the counsel advised him that the applicant is not required to appear before this Hon’ble Court on each and every hearing, as the case is of a civil nature.

9. Therefore, filing of the application at such a belated stage before respondent No.