Jaipur v. Years, S/o Late

Judgment

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary To The Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. Jaipur Development Authority, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur. ----Appellants Versus

1. Brigadier Maharaja Sawai Bhawani Singh, Aged About 71 Years, S/o Late Shri Maharaja Sawai Mansingh Bahadur

Brigadier Maharaja Sawai Bhawani Singh S/o Late Shri Maharaja Sawai Mansingh Bahadur . Resident Of City Palace, Jaipur ( Died During The Pendency Of The Suit).

2. H.s. Maharaja Sawai Padmanabh Singh S/o Late Shri Maharaja Sawai Bhawani Singh Ji, Aged About 13 Years, Through Natural Guardian Mother Rajamata Padmini Devi , Resident Of City Palace , Jaipur Through Power Of Attorney Thakur Narain Singh S/o Late Shri Thakur Man Singh, Resident Of Siras House, Gangapole , Jaipur.

3. H.s. Rajmata Padmini Devi W/o Late Shri Maharaja Sawai Bhawani Singh, Aged About 68 Years, Resident Of City Palace, Jaipur Through Power Of Attorney Thakur Narain Singh S/o Late Shri Thakur Man Singh, Resident Of Siras House, Gangapole, Jaipur.

4. Princes Diya Kumari D/o Late Shri Maharaja Sawai Bhawani Singh W/o Maharaj Naredra Singh, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of City Palace, Jaipur Through Power Of Attorney Thakur Narain Singh S/o Late Shri Thakur Man Singh, Resident Of Siras House, Gangapole, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Bharat Vyas, AAG assisted by Mr. Jay Vardhan Joshi, Adv. For Respondent(s) : [2025:RJ-JP:37442-DB] (2 of 10) [SAC-4/2025] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL 15/09/2025 Order This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 21.04.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court whereby the application filed by the appellants under Section 151 CPC for recalling of the earlier order dated

06.12.2024 was dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that the S.B. Civil First Appeal No.86/2012 filed on behalf of the appellants was dismissed in default vide order dated 20.11.2023. The order dated 20.11.2023 is reproduced as under:- “None present on behalf of the appellant even in the second round. It appears that the appellant has lost interest in pursuing the appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. Misc. application, if any, stands disposed of.” Thereafter, the appellants filed restoration application which was allowed by the learned Single vide order dated 28.11.2024 subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5000/-, the order dated

28.11.2024 is reproduced as under:- “Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed for the reasons stated therein and delay of 59 days in filing the restoration application is condoned. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants, the restoration application is allowed, the civil first appeal is restored to [2025:RJ-JP:37442-DB] (3 of 10) [SAC-4/2025] its original number, subject to deposition of cost of Rs.5,000/- by the applicants with the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority and on filing a receipt thereof in the Registry, within a week from today. Upon doing the same, office is directed to list the appeal for final hearing on 06.12.2024 in the supplementary cause list.” The appellants failed to deposit the cost of Rs.5000/- in compliance of the order dated 28.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge and when the matter was listed again on

06.12.2024, none appeared on the said date for the appellants to argue the matter and the learned Single Judge passed the following order:- “None present on behalf of the petitioner. As per office report, learned counsel for the petitioner has not produced the receipt regarding deposition of cost of Rs.5,000/- as imposed by this Court vide order dated 28.11.2024 so far. The deposition of cost is a condition precedent when order dated 28.11.2024 is itself clear, no further order is required to be passed in this matter.” Again, thereafter, the appellants filed an application under Section 151 CPC for recalling of the order dated 06.12.2024 and the said application was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 21.04.2025 which reads as under:- “By this order, application filed by the applicants under Section 151 CPC for recalling the order dated 06.12.2024 is being decided. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants filed a civil first appeal against the judgment and decree [2025:RJ-JP:37442-DB] (4 of 10) [SAC-4/2025] dated 24.11.2024 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast track) No.5, Jaipur Metropolitan in Civil Suit No.155/2005 titled as ‘Brigadier Maharaja Sawai Bhawani Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another. On account of non-presence on behalf of the appellants-applicants, the said appeal was dismissed vide order dated 20.11.2023. Civil Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the applicants filed a restoration application and the said restoration application was registered as S.B. Restoration Application No.166/2024. The restoration application was allowed vide order dated 28.11.2024 subject to deposition of cost of Rs.5,000/- by the applicants with the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority within a week from that day. Learned counsel for the applicants also submits that due to communication gap between the office of the Additional Advocate General and the Jaipur Development Authority, the said amount of cost of Rs.5,000/- could not be deposited within stipulated period i.e. one week, on account of non-deposition of the amount of cost, the said restoration application was again listed before this Court on 06.12.2024. This Court observed that deposition amount of cost was a condition precedent, so no further order was required to be passed in the matter. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that applicants have deposited the amount of cost of Rs.5,000/- on 10.01.2025. Delay in depositing the cost be condoned and order dated 06.12.2024 passed by this Court be recalled and in the interest of justice, appeal filed by the applicants be adjudicated on merit instead of technicalities. Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance upon the judgment passed in the case of Sheo Raj Singh (deceased) through LRs & Ors. Vs. Union of India and Another in Civil Appeal No.5867 of 2015 decided on 9 October, 2023. Learned counsel for the non- applicants has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the [2025:RJ-JP:37442-DB] (5 of 10) [SAC-4/2025] applicants and submitted that applicants was not serious for adjudication of the appeal filed by them. This Court vide order dated 20.11.2023 dismissed the appeal because none had appeared on behalf of the appellants-applicants in the Court even Learned counsel after the second round. for the non-applicants also submits that previously, on account of non-presence, the applicants filed an application under Order 1 Rule 8A CPC read with Section 151 CPC and under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC were dismissed in the year 2017. counsel for the non-applicants further submits that after dismissal of the appeal, the applicants filed the restoration application with a delay of 59 days. The delay was condoned and appeal was ordered to be restored vide order dated 28.11.2024 subject to deposition of cost of Rs.5,000/- within week therefrom. Learned Learned counsel for the non- applicants further submits that the said order dated 28.11.2024 was passed in the presence of learned counsel for the applicants. The applicants had to comply with the said order within a week but the applicants did not comply the same till 06.12.2024. On the said date, learned counsel for the applicants was not present. As per the office report, cost was not deposited by the applicants, so this Court rightly ordered that deposition of cost of Rs.5,000/- was a condition precedent. So, restoration of appeal could not be processed. Learned counsel for the non- applicants also submits that applicants have deposited the cost on 10.01.2025 without any permission of this Court seeking extension of time. The applicants were never serious regarding the appeal. So, no ground is made out for recalling the order dated 06.12.2024 passed by this Court. So, the present application filed by the applicants being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the non- applicants has placed reliance upon the following Delhi Development Authority Vs. Tejpal and Others reported in (2024) 7 SCC 433; (2) University of Delhi Vs. Union of judgment:- (1) [2025:RJ-JP:37442-DB] (6 of 10) [SAC-4/2025] India and Others reported in (2020) 13 SCC 745; (3) Bhdhia Swain and Others Vs. Gopinath Deb and Others reported in (1999) 4 SCC 396; (4) Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 600; (5) H. Guruswamy and Others Vs. A. Krishnaiah Since Deceased by LRs reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 54; (6) Daya Engg. Works (Sleeper) Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Another reported in 2023 SCC Online Del 178 and (7) Union of India Vs. Tenzing Construction reported in (2022) 3 Gauhati Law Reports 143. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned counsel for the nonapplicants. It is an admitted position that on 20.11.2023, learned counsel for the applicants was not present even after the second round. So, this Court dismissed the appeal filed by the applicants. The applicants had filed the restoration application after the period of limitation. On 28.11.2024, delay in filing the restoration application was condoned and in the interest of justice, restoration application filed by the applicants was allowed for deposition of cost of Rs.5,000/- by the applicants with the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority within a week from the said date. On that day, learned counsel for the applicants was present and the said order was passed in his presence. In recalling application, the applicants have stated that there was a communication gap between the office of the Additional Advocate General and the Jaipur Development Authority, therefore, the said amount could not be deposited within a week, whereas the restoration order was self-explanatory. The applicants had to deposit the amount of cost within the stipulated period i.e. one week from the date of passing the order dated 28.11.2024. As per office report, case was listed on 06.12.2024 as the applicants had not deposited the amount of cost imposed by this Court within the stipulated period. So, this Court has ordered that deposition of the amount of [2025:RJ-JP:37442-DB] (7 of 10) [SAC-4/2025] cost was condition precedent for the restoration of the appeal but the cost was not deposited and this Court also observed that the order dated 28.11.2024 was self- explanatory. On the said date i.e. 28.11.2024, learned counsel for the applicants was present but he had not sought more time for deposition of the cost. Pursuant to the order dated 28.11.2024, applicants had deposited the amount of cost on 10.01.2025 without seeking the permission of this Court by their own wish. During the course of the arguments, learned counsel for the applicants failed to apprise the Court that what was the miscommunication between the office of the Additional Advocate General and the Jaipur Development Authority. So, in my considered opinion, applicants failed to show any bonafide cause for recalling of the order dated 06.12.2024. So, the present civil miscellaneous application filed by the applicants being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand, disposed of.” The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that non-deposition of cost is neither intentional nor deliberate and the same was due to communication gap between the counsel and the officer incharge. He further submits that the valuable right of the appellants are going to be affected if the appeal is not restored back to original number. Counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the matter of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. M.S. Construction Company (D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.189/2003) decided on

03.09.2004 reported in 2004 Supreme (Raj.) 1683. [2025:RJ-JP:37442-DB] (8 of 10) [SAC-4/2025] We have perused the record. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shivamma (Dead) By Lrs Vs. Karnataka Housing Board & Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 11794/2025 decided on 12.09.2025, in para Nos.259, 262 & 264 has held as under:- “259. We are of the view that the question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration. The rules of limitation are based on the principles of sound public policy and principles of equity. We should not keep the ‘Sword of Damocles’ hanging over the head of the respondent for indefinite period of time to be determined at the whims and fancies of the appellants. laxity and

262. The High Courts ought not give a legitimizing effect to such callous attitude of State authorities or its instrumentalities, and should remain extra cautious, if the party seeking condonation of delay is a State-authority. They should ot become surrogates for The State lethargy. constitutional courts ought to be cognizant of the apathy and pangs of a private litigant. Litigants cannot be placed in situations of perpetual litigations, wherein the fruits of their decrees or favourable orders are frustrated at later stages. We are at pains to reiterate this everlasting trend, and put all the High Courts to notice, not to reopen matters with inordinate delay, until sufficient cause exists, as by doing so the courts only add insult to the injury, more particularly in appeals under Section 100 of the CPC, wherein its jurisdiction is already limited to questions of law.

264. No litigant should be permitted to be so lethargic and apathetic, much less be permitted by the courts to misuse the process of law.” From the record, we find that the appeal was pending since 2012 and from the very beginning, the appellants were negligent [2025:RJ-JP:37442-DB] (9 of 10) [SAC-4/2025] in not pursuing the said appeal and the appeal was dismissed in default vide order dated 20.11.2023. We have also gone through the order dated 28.11.2024 by which the restoration application filed alongwith the application for condonation of delay was allowed and the learned Single Jude condoned the delay and restored the appeal to its original number subject to payment of cost of Rs.5000/- which was not deposited by the appellants within the time fixed. We have also gone through the record when again the matter was listed on 06.12.2024, none was present to represent the appellants which clearly shows that the appellants were not interested in pursuing the appeal. We have also perused the application filed on behalf of the appellants for recalling the order dated 06.12.2024 in the said application in para No.3, the appellants have mentioned as under:- “3. That however due to communication gap between the office of the Additional Advocate General and the Jaipur Development Authority, the amount of cost of Rs.5000/- could not be deposited within a period of one week as directed under order dated 28.11.2024. Under such circumstances, when the restoration listed on application was again 06.12.2024, the Hon’ble Court was pleased to dismiss the restoration application. Certified copy of the order dated 06.12.2024 is submitted herein and marked as Annexure MA-1.” In our considered view, the appellants have not submitted any sufficient reasons for not pursuing the matter and not depositing the cost within time. No sufficient explanation has been [2025:RJ-JP:37442-DB] (10 of 10) [SAC-4/2025] mentioned in the application with regard to non-communication of the orders between the appellants and their counsel. In that view of the matter, We see no reason to interfere in the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shivamma (supra). Hence, this special appeal stands dismissed. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J JYOTI /199