[2023:RJ-JD:37446]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Restoration No. 98/2020

Akbar Khan S/o Bhike Khan, Aged About 62 Years, B/c Moyla

Musalman, R/o Kalyanpur, Tehsil Pachpadra, District Barmer.

----Petitioner

Versus

1.

State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector, Barmer.

2.

Officer Incharge, Animal Hospital, Kalyanpur, Tehsil

Pachpadra, District Barmer.

3.

Vetrinary Officer, Barmer Office, Barmer

4.

Narayan Compounder Employees Veterinary Hospital,

Kalyanpur, Tehsil Pachpadra, District Barmer.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. B.S. Charan

For Respondent(s)

:

None present

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

02/11/2023

1.

Vide order dated 18.10.2023, the delay caused in filing the

present restoration application was condoned while allowing the

application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

2.

The present appeal was dismissed in pursuance to the per

emptory order dated 25.04.2018. It has been submitted in the

restoration application that on that date, inadvertently, counsel for

the appellant could not appear and hence, he was not aware of

the per emptory order and therefore, the same could not be

complied with.

[2023:RJ-JD:37446]

(2 of 2)

[CRES-98/2020]

3.

In support of the restoration petition, an affidavit of the

counsel himself who was representing the appellant has been

filed.

4.

Vide directions of this Court, the copy of the application

under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as well as restoration petition

was served on Mr. A.K. Gaur, Additional Advocate General who

usually appears for the department and even his name was

directed to be reflected in the cause list which has even been

reflected. Despite the same, none has put in appearance on

behalf of the respondents.

5.

A perusal of the order dated 25.04.2018 makes it clear that

none was present on behalf of the appellant on that date. As the

present petition is supported by an affidavit of the counsel himself

and the reason given in the petition seems to be plausible one and

keeping in view that if the appeal is not restored, the ultimate

sufferer would be the litigant, this Court deems it appropriate to

allow the present restoration application and restore the appeal.

6.

Hence, the present restoration application is allowed. Let

the first appeal be restored to its original number.

(REKHA BORANA),J

34-T.Singh/-