[2025:RJ-JP:11680] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 1186/2019 Jaipur Development Authority, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Jaipur Through Secretary ----Appellant Versus 1. Satish Jhalani S/o Late Sh. Rajbihari Jhalani, Aged About 57 Years, B/c Mahajan, R/o 725,acharyo Ka Rasta, Kishanpole Bazar, Jaipur Presently Residing At 124/32, Agarwal Farm, Mansarovar, Jaipur 2. Nikhil Jhalani S/o Sh. Satish Jhalani, Aged About 27 Years, B/c Mahajan, R/o 725,acharyo Ka Rasta, Kishanpole Bazar, Jaipur Presently Residing At 124/32, Agarwal Farm, Mansarovar, Jaipur 3. Vikalp Jhalani S/o Sh. Satish Jhalani, Aged About 25 Years, B/c Mahajan, R/o 725,acharyo Ka Rasta, Kishanpole Bazar, Jaipur Presently Residing At 124/32, Agarwal Farm, Mansarovar, Jaipur 4. Ankush Jhalani S/o Sh. Satish Jhalani, Aged About 24 Years, B/c Mahajan, R/o 725,acharyo Ka Rasta, Kishanpole Bazar, Jaipur Presently Residing At 124/32, Agarwal Farm, Mansarovar, Jaipur 5. M/s Neeraj Cement Structure Limited, Through A General Manager, Surendar Kumar Khare S/o Sh. Madan Mohan Khare, Age 48 Yrs Approx, R/o 329 Himmat Nagar, Jaipur ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ribhu Dutta, Adv. For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 12/03/2025 This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 03.12.2016 passed by the Additional Distirct and [2025:RJ-JP:11680] (2 of 3) [CFA-1186/2019] Sessions Judge No.11, Jaipur Metropolitan in civil suit (fatal claim) No.334/2012 whereby the claim petition filed by the plaintiffs- respondents (for short ‘the claimants) has been partly decreed and a sum of Rs.9,39,500/- along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing the claim petiton has been awarded in their favour. Alongwith the said appeal, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed for condonation of 994 days delay in filing the appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that delay in filing the appeal is unintentional. So, in the interest of justice, delay of 994 days in filing the appeal may be condoned. Heard learned counsel for the appellant 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:- “4. That, the counsel before the trial court applied for the certified copy on 06.12.2016, the certified copy of the order was received by the counsel before the trail court on 21.12.2016. Thereafter, the same was dispatched to the JDA by the said counsel along with his opinion on 18.01.2017. The said certified copy along with the opinion of the counsel was received by the JDA. Thereafter, Mr. Manoj Sharma was appointed as an advocate for filing appeal before the Hon’ble High Court on 24.03.2017. By the same order EE (Project) was appointed as the OIC In the case. Neither the OIC nor the advocate concerned received the copy of the said authorization order dated 24.03.2017. Therefore, nothing could be done towards filing appeal. The said directions for filing appeal only came to the knowledge of the OIC in the year 2019 whereupon he immediately apprised the concerned authorities via note-sheet dated 14.03.2019 about non-receipt of the authorisation order. Thereafter, fresh orders were obtained and the counsel Mr. Manoj Sharma was again contacted who refused to handle the case on the ground of delay until payment of special fees. The counsel was again requested multiple times in the [2025:RJ-JP:11680] (3 of 3) [CFA-1186/2019] month of April and again finally in July 2019. But when the counsel refused to take the case then the orders for appointment were modified on 10.07.2019 and present counsel was appointed. Thereafter upon receipt of the relevant documents the draft was prepared and handed over for approval and signatures by the counsel to the OIC on 24.09.2019. Thereafter, the father of the OIC met with an accident on 29.10.2019, he was thereafter operated on 31.10.2019 and he finally succumbed to his injuries on 03.11.2019. Therefore, the OIC could not approve or sign the memo of appeal. ” The appellant has not shown any plausible cause for filing the present appeal after an inordinate delay of 994 days. Entirely vague averments have been made. So, I do not consider it a fit case to condone the inordinate delay of 994 days in filing the appeal. Thus, application filed by the appellant for condonation of 994 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 AVINASH GULERIA /117