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
8 paragraphs · 246 wordsRekha Borana, J
The present restoration application has been filed against the order dated 02.09.2019 passed by the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) whereby the appeal in question was dismissed for non-compliance in pursuance to the peremptory order dated 06.08.2019.
The restoration application is reported to be barred by 1095 days. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed. The service of notice on application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is complete. None has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents.
In the restoration application as well as application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, it has been stated that on the date, when the peremptory order was passed, counsel could not appear before the Court and hence, he was not aware of the said order. Therefore, the same could not be complied with. It has further been submitted that because of the ailment of the wife of the counsel appearing for the appellant, he could not attend the matter.
The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as well as the restoration application is supported by the affidavit of the counsel himself.
In view of the submissions made in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the same is allowed. The delay caused in filing the present restoration application is condoned.
The restoration application is also allowed.
Let S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1731/2014 be restored to its original number.