High CourtsSingle Bench

Sampat Ram vs Lrs Of Purna Ram And Others

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 9 October 2023 · Citation: (2023) 10 RAJ CK 0030

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rekha Borana, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Restoration No. 167 Of 2020
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 332 words

Rekha Borana, J

1.

The present is a restoration application filed against the order dated 15.11.2019 whereby the appeal in question was dismissed by the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court in pursuance to the per-emptory order dated 21.08.2019 passed by the Court.

2.

The present restoration application was filed way back on 18.02.2020 and four defects were pointed out by the office at the relevant point of time including the one of the restoration application being barred by 52 days. Time to remove the defects was granted by the Registrar (Administration) on 18.02.2021 and further by the Court on 01.08.2023. Interestingly, on both these dates, none appeared on behalf of the applicant. On 01.08.2023, last opportunity of two weeks was granted and on that date, it was observed by the Court that if the defects are not removed within the stipulated period, the restoration application be listed for dismissal.

3.

As per the office report, the defects have not been removed.

4.

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed by him today.

5.

So far as the other defects are concerned, the same have not been removed and counsel prays for time to cure the same.

6.

A perusal of the record shows that the restoration application qua an order passed in the year 2019 was filed in the year 2020 and since the year 2020, no steps whatsoever to cure the defects as pointed out by the office have been taken by the counsel. The counsel did not appear when the matter was listed before the Registrar as well as before the Court.

7.

Till date, the other defects as pointed out by the office have not been removed and today also, only time has been sought.

8.

In view of the above facts, this Court does not find any ground to grant any further time to the counsel. The restoration application is therefore, dismissed in non-compliance.