[2025:RJ-JP:1197] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Restoration Application No. 1067/2024 Pramod Kumar Dokwal S/o Shri Mahavir Prasad Dokwal, Manager And Pujari Shri Chamunda Mata Mandir, Power House Road, Ward No. 23, Laxmangarh District Sikar (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Kashi Prasad Muraraka S/o Shri Chiranji Lal Muraraka, R/o Muraraka Katala, Near Murli Manohar Mandir, Kasba Laxmangarh, District Sikar (Raj.) 2. Prem Muraraka S/o Shri Chiranji Lal Muraraka, R/o Muraraka Katala, Near Murli Manohar Mandir, Kasba Laxmangarh, District Sikar (Raj.) 3. Durga Prasad Sharma S/o Shri Rameshwar Lal Sharma, R/o Chhau Tan Gudha, Distt. Jhunjhunu (Raj.) 4. Bhojaram Saini S/o Sh. Rameshwar Lal Saini, R/o Nawal Hotel, Near Ghoom Chakkar Bus Stand, Kasba Nawalgarh, Distt. Jhunjhunu (Raj.) 5. Gopal Kachhwal S/o Unknown, Incharge Munim, Muraraka Kateal, R/o Near Murli Manohar Mandir, Laxmangarh, Distt. Sikar (Raj.) 6. Deepak Bibipuriya S/o Ram Niranjan Bibipuriya, Pracheem Mahavir Store, Sethon Ka Bazar, Kasba Laxmangarh, Distt. Sikar (Raj.) 7. Gulam Nabi S/o Mohammad Hanif Khatri, Resident Of Mohalla Pinaran, Near S.r. School, Station Road, Laxmangarh, Distt. Sikar (Raj.) 8. Mustkeem S/o Mohammad Hanif Khatri, Resident Of Mohalla Pinaran, Near S.r. School, Station Road, Laxmangarh, Distt. Sikar (Raj.) 9. Mohammad Shabbir S/o Mohammad Hanif Khatri, Resident Of Mohalla Pinaran, Near S.r. School, Station Road, Laxmangarh, Distt. Sikar (Raj.) 10. Prabhu Dayal Saini S/o Sh. Tikuram Mali, R/o Ward No. 23, Power House Road, Laxmangarh, Distt. Sikar (Raj.) ----Respondents [2025:RJ-JP:1197] (2 of 3) [CRES-1067/2024] For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Srijana Shresth, Adv. for Mr. C.L. Saini, Adv. For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 08/01/2025 This restoration application has been filed for restoration of S.B. Civil First Appeal No.42/2014 at its original number. Along with the said application, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed for condonation of delay of 1201 days. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that delay in filing the restoration application is unintentional. So, in the interest of justice, delay of 1201 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:- "3. That after passing of the order dated 10.04.2019 counsel for the appellant became Additional Advocate General and duty to remove the defect was assigned to clerk of the counsel, but due to heavy work load defects could not be removed. 4. That in the year 2020 due to Covid-19 pandemic there was lock down and other restrictions, due to which compliance of the order dated 10.04.2019 could not be made. 5.That after the legislative elections of Rajasthan Assembly counsel for the appellant enquired about the appeal and fact regarding dismissal of the appeal came to notice in June, 2024, thereafter counsel for the appellant contracted to the appellant and apprised the facts. Appellant [2025:RJ-JP:1197] (3 of 3) [CRES-1067/2024] was suffering from Typhoid therefore he could not contact with counsel due to that reason this restoration application could not be filed earlier. However, an application to condone the delay is submitted herewith.” The applicant has not shown any plausible cause for filing the present restoration application after an inordinate delay of 1201 days. Entirely vague averments have been made. No affidavit of the advocate's clerk has been filed. Nothing has been mentioned as to how and in what manner the appellant/counsel was concerned with the Rajasthan State Legislative Assembly Elections. So, I do not consider it a fit case to condone the inordinate delay of 1201 days. Thus, application filed by the applicant for condonation of 1201 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 the Limitation Act, the restoration application also stands dismissed. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J AVINASH GULERIA /108