##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JD:22849-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

D.B. Civil Restoration Application No. 358/2025

Om Pal Singh S/o Shri Baru Singh Jat, Aged About 66

Years, R/o 3-A Sarovar Nagar, Banswara (Raj.)

----Petitioner

Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector

Banswara Rajasthan

2. Superintending Engineer, Superintending Engineer

(Construction Div) Mahi Project Banswara Rajasthan

3. Excutive Engineer, (Dam Division 1) Mahi Project

Banswara Rajasthan

4. Additional Chief Secretary, Water Resources Department

Rajasthan Jaipur

5. Additional Secretary And Chief Engineer, Water Resources

Dept., Raj., Jaipur.

6. Joint Legal Advisory Representative To Principal Secretary,

Legal Dept., Raj, Jaipur.

7. Officer On Special Duty, Additional Chief Secretary,

Finance Dept, Jaipur, Raj.

8. Additional Chief Engineer, Water Resources Division,

Udaipur, Raj

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pravin Vyas

For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH

Order(Oral)

13/05/2026

Per : Arun Monga, J

1. The present restoration application seeks revival of D.B. Civil

Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1127/2020, which was dismissed vide order

dated 13.05.2024 passed by the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) on account

of non-compliance of the order dated 05.03.2024 passed by this Court.

2. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has also been

filed, seeking condonation of delay of 474 days in filing the present

restoration application.

(Uploaded on 14/05/2026 at 04:00:28 PM)

(Downloaded on 19/05/2026 at 01:56:08 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:22849-DB] (2 of 4) [CRES-358/2025]

3. Main appeal (D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1127/2020) is

directed against order dated 28.05.2019, whereby the learned

Commercial Court dismissed the application filed by petitioner under

Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

4. We have seen the explanation for seeking condonation of delay in

filing restoration application; no specific details or day to day or

worthwhile explanation has been given as to why the application for

restoration was not filed for more than a year remained pending.

5. For ready reference paras Nos. 3 to 9 of the application are

reproduced herein below:

“3. That on 30.01.2024, notices upon respondents no.1, 4, 5, 7 and 8

were found to be served upon the respondents. However, PF & notices

of respondents No.2, 3 and 6 were not served. was marked on behalf

of the Appearance respondents no.1, 2, 3, 5 & 8 by the learned

Additional Advocate General. itself, fresh notices on application

under Section 5 of the Limitation Act were issued to On 30.01.2024

respondent no.6, returnable on 05.03.2024.

4. That on 05.03.2024, the counsel for the appellant and so also the

respondent did not appear before this Hon'ble Court. An order was

passed directing to file PF & Notices by 15.03.2024, failing which, it

was directed that the appeal shall stand dismissed without reference

to the Court. A certified copy of order dated 05.03.2024 is annexed

herewith and marked as Annex.1.

5. That since the order dated 05.03.2024 was passed in absence of the

counsel representing the appellant, therefore, neither any information

was there to the counsel initially represented the appellant, nor the

party was aware of the said development.

6. That vide order dated 13.05.2024, the case was listed before the

Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court for compliance of the order

dated was not 05.03.2024, however, since needful done, therefore, the

instant appeal was dismissed for non-compliance of the order dated

05.03.2024. A certified copy of the order dated 13.05.2024 is annexed

herewith and marked as Annex.2.

7. That since the appeal lays a challenge to the order of the learned

Commercial Court, Udaipur whereby the application under Section

34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, was rejected and in case,

the present appeal is not heard on merits, irreparable loss would be

caused to the appellant.

8. That the appellant was never informed by the counsel representing

h