[2025:RJ-JP:16191] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Restoration Application No. 1273/2024 Rajendra Kumar S/o Sh. Suresh Kumar, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Puranabas, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar ----Petitioner Versus 1. Gokul Chand S/o Late Sh. Gyan Chand Modi Agrawal, R/o Chhawani, Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (Raj.) 2. Phool Chand S/o Sh. Malaram Riravata, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Ward No. 18, Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikash Kumar Jakhar, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajay Gupta, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 16/04/2025 This restoration application has been filed for restoration of S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.589/2019. Along with the said application, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed for condonation of delay of 490 days. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that delay in filing the restoration application is unintentional. So, in the interest of justice, delay of 490 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:- [2025:RJ-JP:16191] (2 of 2) [CRES-1273/2024] “2. That applicant appellant filed S.B. Civil Misc. restoration application in S.B. Civil Second Appeal after limitation period because counsel was illness from fever, therefore, the counsel was not aware of this order and the peremptory order dated 12.05.2023 and for this reasons no compliance is made, due to this reason the order dated 10.07.2023 is passed. 3. That applicant/appellant met his advocate and instructed to file restoration application due to this reason applicant/appellant filed present S.B. Civil Restoration Application after limitation period.” The applicant has not shown any plausible cause for filing the present restoration application after an inordinate delay of 490 days. No documents with regard to illness of the counsel have been filed. Nothing has been mentioned as to how the appellant came to know about the order 10.07.2023. Entirely vague averments have been made. So, I do not consider it a fit case to condone the inordinate delay of 490 days. Thus, application filed by the applicant for condonation of 490 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 Jatin /88