Ramniwas vs Baluram And Others

Rekha Borana, J

The present restoration application has been preferred against the order dated 06.11.2023 passed by the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court whereby the S.B. Civil Appeal No.1795/2016 had been dismissed in pursuance of the per emptory order dated 06.09.2023.

Vide order dated 10.08.2023, learned counsel for the appellant was granted time to file an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and the matter was directed to be listed on 06.09.2023. However, the said application was not filed on 06.09.2023. Time was granted to counsel till 26.09.2023 to file the said application, failing which it was directed that the appeal would be dismissed without reference to the Court. The application was not filed even till 26.09.2023 and the appeal stood dismissed.

A perusal of the record shows that in the present appeal, at the inception, three defects were pointed out by the office way back in the year 2016 and the same were not cured. The appeal was then dismissed in pursuance to a per emptory order in the year 2017, however the same was restored vide order dated 03.08.2017.

After restoration, the defect as pointed out by the office was again not removed and hence, again a per emptory was passed. Despite the per emptory order, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was not filed and hence, the appeal was dismissed.

In the opinion of this Court, there is nothing available on record which can pursuade this Court to grant indulgence in the present restoration application. The Court cannot appreciate/condone the casual approach of the counsels in dealing with the matters and not removing the defects despite continuous orders and time granted by the Court. There is no plausible reason to restore the present appeal and the restoration application is, therefore dismissed.