High CourtsDIVISION BENCH

Jeet Singh S/o Bhag Singh vs State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 7 July 2017 · Citation: (2017) 07 RAJ CK 0014

HON’BLE JUDGES
Govind Mathur, Vinit Kumar Mathur
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
1122 of 2013

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

32 paragraphs · 341 words
1.

This appeal is preferred to question correctness of the order

dated 05.03.1998 passed by learned Single Bench in S.B. Civil

Writ Petition No.1924/1989.

2.

By the order aforesaid, learned Single Bench dismissed the

petition for writ in light of the law laid down by a Division Bench of

this court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1602/1981 (Mangat Singh

Vs. State & Ors.) decided on 26.08.1992.

3.

The appeal is barred by limitation from 5,664 days.

An application is preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation

Act to have condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. As per

the averments contained in the application, the original petitioner

Shri Jeet Singh preferred the petition for writ challenging an order

dated 11.05.1989 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan,

Ajmer. After filing the petition for writ, Shri Jeet Singh felt ill in the

year 1989-99 and ultimately died on 10.06.1999. In the

meanwhile, he failed to keep contact with his counsel and as such

he was not knowing anything about dismissal of the writ petition

on 05.03.1998. The present applicant being legal heir of late Shri

Jeet Singh preferred the instant appeal on knowing about the

status of the case from the website of the High Court. In para 4 of

the application, a bald statement is made that Shri jeet Singh was

ill in the year 1998-99, therefore, he could not contact the counsel

and ultimately he died on 10.06.1999. Nothing is stated as to

what was the ailment and what treatment Shri Jeet Singh availed

and further that his condition was so serious that for good about a

year and three months he was not in position to make contact

with his counsel. No definite details too are given as to how the

present applicants came to know about dismissal of the writ

petition after a lapse of about 16 years.

4.

In entirety, we do not find any just reason to grant the

application seeking condonation of delay. The application is

dismissed. In result, the appeal also stands dismissed.