Suman Bai Jonwal v. Vahab Khan Son Of Shri Fajruddin, Resident Villageganduri, P.s. Nageena, District Mewat Nuh, Haryana.(Driver Of Truck No. Mp-09-Gf-0378)Ganduri, P.s. Nageena, D

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Restoration Application No. 127/2021 Suman Bai Jonwal D/o Shri Mohanlal Jonwal, Aged About 30Years, Resident 24, Income Tax-I, Ramnagariya Road,Jagatpura, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Vahab Khan Son Of Shri Fajruddin, Resident VillageGanduri, P.s. Nageena, District Mewat Nuh, Haryana.(Driver Of Truck No. Mp-09-Gf-0378)Ganduri, P.s. Nageena, District Mewat Nuh, Haryana.(Driver Of Truck No. Mp-09-Gf-0378) 2. Ishwar Sharma Son Of Shri Satyanarayan Sharma,Resident Of 18, Sector-D, Slice No. 5, Scheme No. 78,Indore (M.p.) (Owner Of Truck No. Mp-09-Gf-0378)Resident Of 18, Sector-D, Slice No. 5, Scheme No. 78,Indore (M.p.) (Owner Of Truck No. Mp-09-Gf-0378) 3. National Insurance Company Ltd., Through Manager,Office First, Panch Batti, M.i. Road, Jaipur. (InsuranceCompany Of Truck No. Mp-09-Gf-0378)Office First, Panch Batti, M.i. Road, Jaipur. (InsuranceCompany Of Truck No. Mp-09-Gf-0378) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s): Mr. Anshul Sharma For Respondent(s): HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 12/01/2024 This restoration application has been filed for restoration ofS.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1864/2018. Along with the saidapplication, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Acthas been filed for condonation of delay of 905 days. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that delay in filingthe restoration application is unintentional. So, in the interest ofjustice, delay of 905 days in filing the restoration application maybe condoned. Heard learned counsel for the applicant on the applicationunder Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The reasons given in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act are reproduced as under:- “That the pre-emptory order was passed by theHon’ble Court on 15.02.2019 and thereafter thecase was listed on 01.05.2019 before the Dy.Registrar and then only the applicant came toknow that the compliance of the order dated15.02.2019 passed by this Hon’ble Court has notbeen made. Thereafter the applicant-appellanthas moved this restoration application along withthe application for condonation of delay withoutany further delay and as such though there wastechnical delay but in fact there was no delay infiling the restoration application.”Hon’ble Court on 15.02.2019 and thereafter thecase was listed on 01.05.2019 before the Dy.Registrar and then only the applicant came toknow that the compliance of the order dated15.02.2019 passed by this Hon’ble Court has notbeen made. Thereafter the applicant-appellanthas moved this restoration application along withthe application for condonation of delay withoutany further delay and as such though there wastechnical delay but in fact there was no delay infiling the restoration application.” The applicant has not shown any plausible cause for filing thepresent restoration application after an inordinate delay of 905days. No justification has been given for not filing the restorationapplication form the year 2019 upto 2021. Entirely vagueaverments have been made. So, I do not consider it a fit case tocondone the inordinate delay of 905 days. Thus, application filedby the applicant for condonation of 905 days delay in filing therestoration application is devoid of merit and liable to bedismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Consequent upon the dismissal of the application underSection 5 of the Limitation Act, the restoration application alsostands dismissed. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Ritu/265