HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Restoration Application No. 231/2025 In S. B. Civil Restoration Application No.416/2024 In S. B. Civil Second Appeal No.190/2015

1. Ramji Lal Son Of Samila, Deceased Through Hie Legal Heirs-

1/1. Dalveer Singh Son Of Ramjilal, R/o Gunsara, Tehsil Kumher, District Bharatpur.

---Applicant/Plaintiff/Appellant Versus Ishwari Son Of Khudhi, R/o Gunsara, Tehsil Kumher, District Bharatpur.

---Non-Applicant/Defendant/Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yogendra Singh, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Order

24/07/2025 On 26.07.2017, when SB Civil Second Appeal No.190/2015 was listed before the court, none had appeared for the appellant- plaintiff even in the second round. In this view of the matter, the second appeal was dismissed in default vide order dated

26.07.2017.

Thereafter, a restoration application No. 416/2024 was filed along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of 2418 days delay. When the aforesaid applications were listed before the court on 10.03.2025, none had appeared for the applicants-petitioners despite taking up the matter in the second round. For the aforesaid reason, the restoration application was dismissed for want of prosecution and the misc. application was disposed of vide order dated 10.03.2025.

Now the second restoration application No. 231/2025 has been filed on 16.05.2025 and that too, with a delay. Along with the restoration application No. 231/2025 an application under Section Section 5 of the Limitation Act has also been filed wherein it has been mentioned that on 10.03.2025 when the case was listed before the court, counsel for the appellant fell sick and could not mark the case in the cause list and for this reason he could not appear before the court. It has also been mentioned that when the counsel for the appellant came to know about dismissal of the restoration application, he informed the appellant but the appellant forgot to meet his counsel due to busyness.

From a perusal of the material on record, it is evident that counsel for the appellant has not annexed any medical prescription with regard to his illness nor he mentioned the disease from which he was said to have been suffering. Further, when the counsel for the appellant had informed the appellant about dismissal of the case, the appellant was said to have forgotten to meet the counsel due to busyness in his personal work. When the appellant had submitted his powers to the counsel, the counsel for the appellant must have appeared before the court and should have filed the restoration application timely irrespective of the fact that the appellant forgot to meet the counsel. It seems that the appellant is taking false pretext and does not want to pursue the case which is quite evident from the fact that on earlier two occasions neither he nor his advocate appeared before the court when the cases were called out twice.

For the aforesaid reasons, I find no ground to condone the delay and to allow the restoration application.

Thus, the restoration application as also the misc. application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act being bereft of any merit deserve to be dismissed, which stand dismissed accordingly.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Gourav/43