Judgment · High Court · 2012
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Limitation Act, 1963 s. 5
Key paragraphs
- Para 20112011. We find that appeal against main order cannot be entertained after 14 years. Delay has not been properly explained. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no ground to condone the delay in filing of appeal. Same is hereby dismissed. Stay…
Judgment
Mr.Mohd. Haroon son of appellant present in person. Heard. The writ petition was decided on 8.11.1996 by Single Bench of this Court on merit holding that it would not be proper at such a late stage to quash the notification under Section 4 or declaration under Section 6 and invocation of urgency clause under Section 17(4). Restoration application was filed after fifteen years in the year 2011. The Single Bench has declined to set aside the order and restore the writ petition to its original number vide order dated
12.9.2011 passed in Civil Restoration Application No.196/2011. Hence, the intra court appeal has been preferred. We have perused the order passed by Single Bench on 18.11.1996 and also the order dated 12.9.2011 passed in Civil Restoration Application NO.196/2011. It is apparent from the aforesaid order dated
18.11.1996 that the case was decided on merits. It was held by Single Bench of this Court that it would not be proper to make interference in the notification under Section 4 or declaration under Section 6 and invocation of urgency clause under Section 17(4). There was inordinate delay of more than fourteen years in filing the restoration application. As the case was decided on merits, there was no question of restoration of the writ application. It was not dismissed in default of appearance. This fact was also mentioned that the 2 counsel did not appear as the appellant was not interested in pressing the writ petition. However, the decision was rendered on merits as apparent from reading of the entire order. Thus filing of the restoration application was misconceived venture, that too with an inordinate delay, which was not satisfactorily explained. The submission raised that husband of the appellant was suffering from cancer, cannot be said to be sufficient so as to explain the inordinate delay of more than fourteen years. Husband of the petitioner died in the year 2008 and thereafter, the restoration application was filed in
#2011. We find that appeal against main order cannot be entertained after 14 years. Delay has not been properly explained. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no ground to condone the delay in filing of appeal. Same is hereby dismissed. Stay application and application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act are also dismissed. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-I),J. (ARUN MISHRA),C.J. Skant/- All the corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed. Shashi Kant Gaur, PA
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Limitation Act, 1963 — s. 5.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Rajasthan High Court, on 25 Jan 2012. The bench was ARUN MISHRA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.
Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.