IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2026 [SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(S) (C) NO(S). 8296 OF 2024]

RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD., (RIICO) APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS M/S KOHINOOR MARBLES PVT. LTD. & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, by the impugned order dated 5^th January, 2024 has dismissed an appeal, Digitally signed by on the ground of inordinate delay of 184 days in its presentation as well as omission to offer any specific justification for such delay.

3. We find that the order impugned in the appeal before the High Court was passed on 10^th December, 2021 and the appeal

2022.

4. The High Court may have been right in concluding that there was a Signatdure eNotl Vaerifyied of 184 days while making a purely mathematical calculation.

BORRA LM VALLI Date: 2026.02.14

Reaso1n:

D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2473 of 2022

5. However, we also find that the High Court did not consider the order passed by this Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition² that was registered during the COVID period.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has drawn our attention to sub-para 3 of paragraph 5 of the order passed in such suo motu writ petition, which reads as follows:

“III. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply.”

7. In view of the aforesaid direction made by this Court, the limitation in the present case ought to have commenced from 1^st of June, 2022 and in such case, the appeal is barred by around ninety days.

8. In such view of the matter and having considered the claim and counter claim of the parties, but without expressing any opinion on merits, we are of the considered opinion that interest of justice would be best served if the impugned order dismissing the appeal as time barred is set aside and the High Court requested to hear the appeal on its own merits.

Ordered accordingly.

9. The appeal, thus, stands allowed.

10. In view of the lapse of sufficient time since the order dated 10th December, 2021 was made by the trial court allowing the petition under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, we request the High

Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020

Court to hear and decide the appeal at an early date.

11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

……………………………..………J.

(DIPANKAR DATTA)

………………………………………J. (SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA)

NEW DELHI;

FEBRUARY 9, 2026.

ITEM NO.53 COURT NO.6 SECTION XV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO(S). 8296/2024 [ARISING OUT OF IMPUGNED FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 05-01- 2024 IN DBCMA NO. 2473/2022 PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR]

RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD., (RIICO) PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS M/S KOHINOOR MARBLES PVT. LTD. & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)

Date : 09-02-2026 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anuj Bhandari, AOR Mr. Anuj Bhandari, Adv.

Ms. Jahanvi Bhardwaj, Adv.

Ms. Ishu Bhardwaj, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Nargolkar, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Soumik Ghosal, AOR Mr. Gaurav Singh, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. Appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order, which is placed on file.

3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

(B. LAKSHMI MANIKYA VALLI) (SUHIR KUMAR SHARMA)

COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)