[2025:RJ-JP:19882] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1926/2025 Smt. Gullo W/o Shri Surjan, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Totolai Tehsil, Gangapur City. ----Appellant/Defendant Versus 1. Smt. Laccho Devi, Aged About 40 Years, W/o Kamal 2. Ramniwasi, Aged About 35 Years, W/o Mohanlal, 3. Smt. Mudi, W/o Late Shri Jagdish 4. Kishori Devi W/o Kailash, All Are R/o Totolai Tehsil Gangapur City. ----Respondent/Plaintiffs 5. Sarup S/o Nahya, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Totolai Tehsil, Gangapur City, At Present R/o Nai Ki Baggchi, Near Madina Mosque, Chuli Gate, Gangapur City. ----Respondent/Defendant For Appellant(s) : Mr. Yogesh Pujari with Ms. Nandani Maurya For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 12/05/2025 Matter has come up on application No.859/2025 filed by the appellant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal No.1926/2025. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant by way of the present civil misc. appeal has challenged the order dated 05.12.2014 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gangapur City. [2025:RJ-JP:19882] (2 of 3) [CMA-1926/2025] The appellant under some wrong impression has filed a Civil First Appeal No.550/2016, which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to avail appropriate remedy, in accordance with law vide order dated 11.03.2025 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The appellant has preferred this misc. appeal and therefore, delay in filing this appeal deserves to be condoned. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the appellant is a widow lady and deserves leniency in condoning the delay. Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant, so also perused the material made available on record. The appellant has preferred an application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 17.12.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City, District Sawaimadhopur, in Civil Suit No.56/2004. The application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. was dismissed vide its order dated 05.12.2014. Against the said order, the appellant has preferred the civil first appeal No.550/2016 which goes to show that the said appeal was filed after more than one and a half year. Counsel for the appellant neither made any submissions nor any averments made in the application to point out any convincing reason to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed as the appellant has failed to explain the delay satisfactorily in filing the appeal. [2025:RJ-JP:19882] (3 of 3) [CMA-1926/2025] Consequently, the present appeal is also dismissed being time barred. Stay application as well as pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J SAURABH /48