Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1330 (RAJ)

Ravindra v. Shailendra Kumar Agarwal

2023-07-07

MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

body2023
JUDGMENT : Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J. - This restoration application, which is reported to be time barred by 1981 days, is accompanied with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 2. It is stated in the application that the appellant/plaintiff came to know in the first week of May, 2023 that his counsel Shri Sanjay Sharma has passed away on 09.08.2022 and thereafter, when he visited this Court on 10.05.2023, it transpired that the civil second appeal was dismissed on 13.09.2017 of which he was never communicated. 3. Reiterating the averments made in the application, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant submits that he should not be punished for fault of his counsel. She, therefore, prays that the delay in restoration application be condoned. 4. Heard. Considered. 5. The reasons assigned in the application seeking condonation of delay are far from satisfactory. The civil second appeal against concurrent finding of facts recorded against him was filed by the applicant on 30.05.2014 suffering from various defects which were not cured for a period of about three years and six months despite opportunities, resulting into its dismissal on 14.11.2017. No reason is forthcoming from the application as to why the applicant did not contact his counsel for a period of more than five years and six months and how he came to know of death of his counsel. The equity comes to the aid of a vigilant litigant and inordinate delay cannot be condoned in favour of a litigant who is negligent and indolent about status of his case. 6. A coordinate Bench of this Court has, in case of Jetaram & Ors. v. Tari Devi dealing with an identical situation, held as under:- "17. The sum and substance of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and the additional affidavit is that the appellants were not informed by the counsel about the decision dated 22/2/2014. The said plea raised apparently is specious, inasmuch as the counsel, who was representing the appellants died on 4/4/2016 i.e. after more than two years. It is not indicated by the appellants as to between 22/2/2014 and 4/4/2016 and thereafter till January, 2020 whether they made any effort/inquiry to find out the status of the appeal. The said plea raised apparently is specious, inasmuch as the counsel, who was representing the appellants died on 4/4/2016 i.e. after more than two years. It is not indicated by the appellants as to between 22/2/2014 and 4/4/2016 and thereafter till January, 2020 whether they made any effort/inquiry to find out the status of the appeal. It cannot be comprehended that a party once entrusting a case to the counsel would not care to even try to meet the counsel to find out the status of the case for over six years and as such, apparently, said submission regarding counsel not informing is without any basis. 18. A perusal of the original application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, contents whereof have been quoted hereinbefore, indicates that a stock plea was raised that the counsel did not inform about the outcome and as soon as the appellants became aware of passing of the judgment by the appellate court, they rushed to the office of counsel, obtained copy of the judgment and rushed for filing the appeal. In fact, it is not even indicated in the application filed initially that the counsel had died in the year 2016 and it is only when the Court found that the application was laconic, time was sought and additional affidavit was filed, wherein, for the first time, it was indicated that the counsel has died. In fact, the submission made in the initial application is that the copy of the judgment was obtained from the office of the counsel, which submission now appears to be per se incorrect. 19. The standard practice in seeking condonation of delay by putting the blame on the counsel allegedly not informing about the outcome of the litigation, cannot be countenanced in each and every case where the party, even if the allegation is true, chose not to approach the counsel for six long years and as such, besides the fact that the plea raised is apparently incorrect, in view of the averments contained in the application filed initially and the additional affidavit, the same cannot be accepted." 7. Since, this Court is not satisfied that the applicant was prevented by a sufficient cause for filing the restoration application within limitation, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is dismissed. 8. Resultantly, the restoration application also stands dismissed.