[2025:RJ-JP:28807] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 319/2025 1. Banwari Lal Son Of Malaram, Aged About 68 Years, Resident Of Dhani Dholakawali, Tan Kankariya, Tehsil Khetri, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) 2. Bhataram Son Of Malaram, Resident Of Dhani Dholakawali, Tan Kankariya, Tehsil Khetri, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) 3. Shishram Son Of Malaram, Resident Of Dhani Dholakawali, Tan Kankariya, Tehsil Khetri, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) 4. Mahipal Son Of Malaram, Resident Of Dhani Dholakawali, Tan Kankariya, Tehsil Khetri, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) 5. Dataram Son Of Malaram (Since Deceased), Resident Of Dhani Dholakawali, Tan Kankariya, Tehsil Khetri, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) 6. Parmaram Son Of Gopal (Since Deceased), Resident Of Dhani Dholakawali, Tan Kankariya, Tehsil Khetri, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) 7. Hajari Lal Son Of Gopal (Since Deceased), Resident Of Dhani Dholakawali, Tan Kankariya, Tehsil Khetri, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) ----Appellants Versus 1. Ramavtar Son Of Hanuman, Resident Of Dhani Dhokawali, Tan Kankariya, Tehsil Khetri, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) 2. Makkhan Lal Son Of Surjan Ram, Resident Of Kankariya, Tehsil Khetri, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) 3. Mularam Son Of Narayan, Resident Of Kankariya, Tehsil Khetri, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) 4. Tejpal Son Of Sundaram, Resident Of Kankariya, Tehsil Khetri, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) (Since Deceased Through Lrs.) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vidhut Kumar Gupta, Adv. [2025:RJ-JP:28807] (2 of 4) [CSA-319/2025] For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 30/07/2025 This Civil Second Appeal has been filed by the appellants- defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) against the judgment and decree dated 11.10.2019 passed by Additional District Judge, Khetri, Rajasthan in Civil Regular First Appeal No.09/2013, whereby the appeal filed by the appellants has been dismissed and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 13.11.2013 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Khetri in Civil Case No.28/2007, by which the trial court decreed the respondents-plaintiffs’ (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) suit for mandatory and permanent injunction. Along with the said application, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed for condonation of delay of 1974 days. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that delay in filing the appeal is unintentional. So, in the interest of justice, delay of 1974 days in filing the appeal may be condoned. Heard learned counsel for the defendants on the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The reasons given in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act are reproduced as under:- “2. That, the appeal was decided by the learned appellate court vide judgment dated 11.10.2019. After dismissal of the said appeal, the appellants/defendants got certified copy of both the judgments and decree dated 06.11.2019, before it the appellant No.1 Banwari Lal met to [2025:RJ-JP:28807] (3 of 4) [CSA-319/2025] the Advocate late Shri Sajjan Raj Surana Sr. Advocate of this Hon’ble Court through Mr. Sanjay Yadav Advocate who is Junior of Mr. Sajjan Raj Surana. On 02.11.2019 he obtained Vakalatnama from the office of Mr. Sajjan Raj Surana and thereafter the appellant gave the Vakalatnama after signed along with certified copy of judgments along with relevant papers of the case in the office of advocate late Mr. Sajjan Raj Surana through Mr. Sanjay Yadav. On dated 06.11.2019 and 15.11.2019 he paid fee to the counsel through Sanjay Yadav (advocate). Thereafter in the year 2025 when appellant No.1 Banwarilal went in the office of Tehsildar for made registry of his agriculture land, then Tehshildar told him that a decree/order was given by the plaintiffs/defendants. If any appeal is pending in the High Court, then the copy of the appeal, status of appeal and any interim stay order passed in your favour provide in the office of Tehsildar, otherwise initiate proceedings against you. Then the appellant No.1 came in the office of his counsel where he came to know that his counsel passed away in the COVID-19 spread and after searching the file from the impugned judgments, he came to know that no such appeal was filed by earlier counsel then again he applied for certified copy of judgment dated 11.10.2019 applied on dated 03.05.2025 and in the office of earlier counsel, he instructed for procure the earlier judgment dated 13.11.2013 of learned trial court. Then he applied for the said judgment on 21.05.2025 and came to Jaipur on 28.05.2025 in the office of earlier counsel, after searching the case from both the judgments, he came to know that no appeal was filed against the said judgments before this Hon’ble Court and his earlier counsel passed away in COVID-19 spread, so he contacted to another counsel and filed this appeal.” The defendants have not shown any plausible cause for filing the present appeal after an inordinate delay of 1974 days. Neither and date of death of earlier counsel has been mentioned nor any reason has been given as to why the present appeal has been filed on 06.06.2025 when the lock down imposed due to Covid-19 had since been lifted. Entirely vague averments have been made. So, I do not consider it a fit case to condone the inordinate delay of [2025:RJ-JP:28807] (4 of 4) [CSA-319/2025] 1974 days. Thus, the application filed by the defendants for condonation of 1974 days delay in filing the appeal is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Consequent upon the dismissal of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the appeal also stands dismissed. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Jatin /50