[2026:RJ-JP:5682]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Restoration Application No. 252/2025 In S.B. Civil First Appeal No.320/2014 Prakash Chand @ Chaman Prakash S/o Shri Babu Lal Mahajan (Baloti Wale), R/o Inside The Colony Of Girraj Oil Mile, Near Oswal Chungi Naka, Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur Rajasthan.

----Applicant/Appellant Versus Girraj Prasad S/o Roop Narayan, Gangapur City, District Sawaimadhopur, Rajasthan.

----Respondent For Applicant(s) : Mr. Ram Rakh Sharma with Mr. Santosh Sharma For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA

Order

06/02/2026

1. The present civil miscellaneous restoration application has been filed for recalling of the order dated 12.05.2017 passed by this Court, as well as the consequential order dated 24.07.2017 passed by the Registrar (Judl.) in S.B. Civil First Appeal No.320/2014.

2. Heard on Application No.1285/2025, for condoning the delay in filing the present restoration application.

3. From a perusal of the said application (1285/2025), it is reflected that the present restoration application has been filed by the applicant/appellant after an inordinate delay of 2792 days.

4. The only explanation furnished by the learned counsel for the applicant/appellant is that, on account of family problems, the applicant/appellant could not pay the court fees. The aforesaid ground for condonation of the inordinate delay of 2792 days does not fall within 'sufficient cause' to condone such an inordinate delay.

5. Therefore, it is explicitly clear that the alleged ground for condoning a delay of 2792 days, is not bona fide and the delay has occurred due to the inaction and negligence of the applicant/appellant only. Even otherwise, the aforesaid ground is based on a feeble excuse, which cannot be accepted.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Barrel & Drum MFG Go. Vs. The Employees State Insurance Corporation¹, has held as under:

"5. ...that law does not assist a person who is inactive and sleeps over his rights by allowing them when challenged or disputed to remain dormant without asserting them in a Court of law. The principle which forms the basis of this rule is expressed in the maximum vigilantibus, non dermientibus, jura subveniunt (the laws give help to those who are watchful and not to those who sleep). Therefore, the object of the statutes of limitations is to compel a person to exercise his right of action within a reasonable time as also to discourage and suppress stale, fake or fraudulent claims."

7. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Esha Bhattacharjee v. Committee of Raghunatpur Nafar Academy & Ors.², has held as under:

"21.8 (viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration of a few days, for the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted, whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants a strict approach, whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation.

21.9 (ix) The conduct, behaviour, and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties, and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of a liberal approach"

8. In view of the above legal proposition of law and facts stated above, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act,1963, for condonation of delay of 2792 days, is hereby dismissed for want of any sufficient cause mentioned in the application.

9. Accordingly, the present Civil Miscellaneous Restoration Application is also dismissed.

10. Any other pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

(MANEESH SHARMA),J Seema/140