[2025:RJ-JP:19379] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Restoration Application No. 132/2025 in SB Civil Second Appeal No. 188/2021 Smt. Shanti Meena W/o Shri B.s. Meena, Aged About 72 Years, R/o Railway Colony, Jaipur At Present Resident Of 156/1, Shyam Enclave, Sirsi Road, Panncyawala, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Kailash Chand Gupta S/o Shri Satynarayan Gupta, R/o Plot No. 39, Hardev Colony, Tonk Road, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. Shanti Nagar Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Through Secretary Shri Mahesh Agrawal, Plot No. 9, Dwarkapuri, Panipech, Jaipur. 3. Vijay Kumar Sharma, Mantri, Shanti Nagar Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Plot No. 127 Janakpuri, Imliwala Phatak, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur. 4. R.k. Kaka S/o Shri Parmanand Kaka, R/o B-282, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sameer Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 08/05/2025 This restoration application has been filed for restoration of S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.188/2021. Along with the said application, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed for condonation of delay of 978 days. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that delay in filing the restoration application is unintentional. So, in the interest of justice, delay of 978 days in filing the restoration application may be condoned. Heard learned counsel for the applicant on the application under Section 5 of the limitation Act. [2025:RJ-JP:19379] (2 of 2) [CRES-132/2025] The reasons given in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act are reproduced as under:- “That the counsel for the appellant-defendant No.4 was under impression that four weeks’ time was granted to remove the defect along with peremptory order but inadvertently it could not be marked by the appellant. Thereafter the case was listed on 19.07.2022 before Registrar (Judicial) and case was dismissed for non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 15.02.2022. Now appellant immediately filed this restoration application, hence, the bonafide mistake committed by the appellant is liable to be condoned and this restoration application is liable to be allowed.” The applicant has not shown any plausible cause for filing the present restoration application after an inordinate delay of 978 days. Entirely vague averments have been made. So, I do not consider it a fit case to condone the inordinate delay of 978 days. Thus, application filed by the applicant for condonation of 978 days delay in filing the restoration application is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Consequent upon the dismissal of the application under Section 5 of limitation Act, the restoration application also stands dismissed. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Ritu/47