[2026:RJ-JP:7433]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Review Petition No. 29/2025 Smt. Bhuri Devi, Since Deceased W/o Late Smt. Radhey Shyam, Seth Ka Madh, Bharatpur, Rajasthan Through Legal Heir Narendra Sharma S/o Late Smt. Radhey Shyam Sharma, Aged About 61 Years, R/o G-775, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur Presently Residing At Plot No. 11-A, Raj Nagar, Getor, Jagatpura Road, Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus

1. Urban Improvement Trust, Bharatpur Through OIC, UIT Bharatpur

2. State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector, Bharatpur

3. State Bank Of Bikaner And Jaipur, Collectorate Branch Of Branch, Now Changed To State Bank Of India, Collectorate Branch, Bharatpur Through Its Manager ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Samdaria Mr. Arihant Samdaria For Respondent(s) : Mr. L.L. Gupta Mr. Tanmay Mathur HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

Order

16/02/2026

1. The instant review application is preferred by Narendra Sharma seeking review of the order dated 07.03.2025 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Restoration Application No. 202/2018, whereby the restoration application preferred for restoration of S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Restoration Application No. 1324/2011 in S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 105/2008 was dismissed, s same having been held to be barred by law of limitation and filed after a delay of 2378 days, and the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay having been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while placing reliance upon the grounds and documents submitted along with the present application, has submitted that against the judgment dated 15.12.2007 passed in Civil Regular Appeal No. 171/2003 by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Bharatpur, S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 105/2008 was filed by plaintiff Bhuri Devi and when the said appeal was listed for admission on 28.01.2009, and was dismissed for non- prosecution. He further submitted that petitioner Bhuri Devi filed Restoration Application No. 1324/2011, which was dismissed on 02.08.2011 in wake of pre-emptory order dated 23.04.2011.

3. He further submitted that a restoration application has been filed to restore the restoration application by the legal heir of Bhuri Devi (since deceased) on the ground that Bhuri Devi expired on 07.04.2015 and Narendra Kumar is 100% blind. He further submitted that the restoration application was dismissed by this Court on 07.03.2025 as there was no supporting document to show and justify the reasons of delay.

4. Learned counsel has further placed reliance upon the judgments in the case of Rafiq vs. Munshilal, AIR 1981 SC 1400; The Commissioner, Mysore Urban Development Authority vs. S.S. Sarvesh, (2019) 5 SCC 144; and Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd., 2024 INSC 292, and submitted that if any appeal is dismissed for default of appellant’s counsel, then the principle is that a party should not suffer on account of the mistake, default or inaction of his counsel. He further submitted that to do substantial justice between the parties, it is necessary to consider the case of the present petitioner and hear the matter on merits.

5. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is

100% blind and son of illiterate plaintiff Smt. Bhuri Devi. He further referred to the physical disabilities and submitted that to provide access to justice, it is necessary to reconsider the case and the order be reviewed in light of the fact that Bhuri Devi was suffering from cancer and she remained under treatment for the last few years of her life and later expired whereas only legal representation is blind.

6. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. He submitted that a review petition cannot be preferred to review the order passed on merits. He further referred to the judgment in the case of S. Madhusudhan Reddy vs. V. Narayana Reddy, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1304, and submitted t