[2025:RJ-JP:2191] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Restoration Application No. 70/2020 in SB Civil First Appeal No. 23/2004 Pushpa Bai Daughter Of Mangi Lal, Resident Of Kajlaya, Tehsil Aklera, District Jhalawar (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Kanwar Lal S/o. Shri Amra, Resident Of Uni, Tehsil Aklera. 2. Danmal S/o Shri Amra, Resident Of Uni, Tehsil Aklera. 3. Phool Chand S/o. Shri Amra, Resident Of Uni, Tehsil Aklera. 4. Babulal S/o. Shri Chandalal Meena, Resident Of Chandpur, Tehsil Aklera. 5. Ramlal S/o. Kajod, Resident Of Khuri, Tehsil Aklera. 6. Dhanna Lal, Member Son Of Ram Narain Meena, Resident Of Fokrada, Tehsil Aklera. 7. Amar Lal Member Son Of Raghunath Meena, Resident Of Salawad, Tehsil Aklera. 8. Babu Lal Member, Son Of Kajod Meghwal, Resident Of Turkadiya, Tehsil Aklera. 9. Gopi Lal, Member Son Of Shri Baldev, Resident Of Slawad, Tehsil Aklera. 10. Balram, Member Son Of Dudha Meena, Resident Of Bardawda, Tehsil Aklera. 11. Munni Bai Member, Joje Chotu Lal Meena, Resident Of Amlawda, Tehsil Aklera. 12. Bhuli Bai Member, Joje, Danmal Meena, Resident Of Uni, Tehsil Aklera. 13. Gangaram Sarpanch, Son Of Shri Nathu Lal Meena, Resident Of Pathriya, Tehsil Aklera At Present Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Turkadiya, Tehsil Aklera, District Jhalawar (Raj.) 14. Ravindra Kumar Sharma, Patwari, Patwar Halka, Turkadiya, Tehsil Aklera. [2025:RJ-JP:2191] (2 of 4) [CRES-70/2020] 15. Parmanand Meena, Kanoongi, Resident Of Lahash, At Present Kanoongi Halka, Turkadiya, Tehsil Aklera, District Jhalawar. 16. State Government Through District Collector, Jhalawar, District Jhalawar. 17. Sub Registrar, Office Of Sub-Registrar, Aklera, District Jhalawar (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ravindra Pal Singh for Mr. Neeraj Batra, GC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 16/01/2025 This restoration application has been filed for restoration of S.B. Civil First Appeal No.23/2004. Along with the said application, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed for condonation of delay of 4320 days. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that delay in filing the restoration application is unintentional. So, in the interest of justice, delay of 4320 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. The reasons given in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act are reproduced as under:- “That the appellant had filed present appeal through Shri Mahendra Jain, Advocate Kota. The Advocate had given assurance that there is no need to attend the Hon’ble High Court on [2025:RJ-JP:2191] (3 of 4) [CRES-70/2020] each date. They have also assured that as and when the presence of appellant is required then they will be informed. The appellant is an uneducated lady. In such circumstances, the appellant could not contact her counsel. However, the appellant had filed a revenue suit No. 119/2018 before Assistant Collector, Aklera against Kanwarlal and others under Section 88, 89, 91 and 92A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act on 14.11.2018. After service, the defendant Kanwarlal and others had disclosed this fact that the present appeal has already been dismissed by this Court. Thereafter, the appellant met with Sh. Mahendra Kumar Jain, Advocate, Kota personally and however, no proper response was given. Thereafter, the appellant sent a registered letter to Mr. Mahendra Kumar Jain as well as Shri Rohan Jain, Advocate on 04.10.2019 but no response was given. That thereafter with the help of local advocate Mr. Yogesh Kumar Goyal, the appellant met with the present counsel. The counsel for the appellant had moved the application for obtaining the certified copy on 04.12.2019 and the same was received on 10.12.2019. Thereafter, the present restoration application was prepared and filed without any further delay.” The applicant has not shown any plausible cause for filing the present restoration application after an inordinate delay of 4320 days. Nothing has been mentioned as to when the defendant-respondent Kanwar Lal had disclosed the factum of [2025:RJ-JP:2191] (4 of 4) [CRES-70/2020] dismissal of the appeal and when she met the present counsel. Entirely vague averments have been made. So, I do not consider it a fit case to condone the inordinate delay of 4320 days. Thus, application filed by the applicant for condonation of 4320 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 Gourav/103