IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
MJC No.2192 of 2009
RAM TANUK RAI & ORS .
Versus
SMT.SAROBAR DEVI & ORS .
Ref: I.A. No.6784 of 2010
-----------
05. 31.08.2010 I.A. No. 6784 of 2010 is a petition under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, wherein prayer has
been made for condoning the delay of four years and
five months in filing of this restoration application
under instant M.J.C. No. 2192 of 2009. The said
restoration application No. 2192 of 2009 has been
filed for restoration of F.A. No. 270 of 1973, which
stood dismissed by this Court on 27.01.2005, as a
result of having been found incompetent due to its’
dismissal against respondent Nos. 11(c ) and 11(a) on
account of non-compliance of peremptory order
No.106 therein. There has been a delay of four years
and five months in the filing of this restoration
application under M.J.C. No.2192 of 2009. For
condoning the delay this I.A. No.6784 of 2010 has
been filed. As to the grounds as set forth in this I.A.
it is mentioned that the petitioner/appellant had no
knowledge about the dismissal of the said F.A. No.
2
270 of 1973 and that after the disposal of the said
F.A. when the respondent took copy of the order and
started disposing of the property of their share, the
petitioner/appellant came to know about the
restoration application and thereafter he came to the
Court, contacted his lawyer and after verifying the
records learnt about the dismissal of the said F.A.
No.270 of 1973 and that thereafter he file the
restoration application.
Learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant
submits that the petitioner/appellant had no
knowledge of the disposal of F.A. No.270 of 1973
and he could not file the restoration application
within time.
Thus, from the averment of the
petitioner/appellant in the very I.A. itself, it appears
that the petitioner being appellant in the said F.A.
was quite negligent in prosecuting his appeal and that
even the respondents were vigilant so that they
obtained the copy of the dismissal order but the
petitioner being the appellant did not take care of his
3
appeal. The appellant was also not fully vigilant in
prosecuting his First Appeal, as a result of which it
stood dismissed due to non-compliance of the
peremptory order No.106 therein. It appears that
petitioner was also negligent and there appears to be
a grave laches on his part in filing this restoration
application and the delay is not being reasonably
explained. In the result, I do not find any reason to
allow I.A. No.6784 of 2010; hence, the I.A. is
dismissed. As a result of the dismissal of the I.A. the
restoration application under M.J.C. No.2192 of 2009
also stands dismissed as time barred.
(C.M. Prasad, J.)
Mkr.