[2025:RJ-JP:16451] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 38/2025 In S.B. Civil Restoration Application No.166/2024 In S.B. Civil First Appeal No.86/2012 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Jaipur Development Authority, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Brigadier Maharaja Sawai Bhawani Singh S/o Late Shri Maharaja Sawai Mansingh Bahadur, Aged About 71 Years, Resident Of City Palace, Jaipur (Died During The Pendency Of The Suit). 1/1. H.s. Maharaja Sawai Padamnath Singh S/o Late Shri Maharaja Sawai Bhawani Singh Ji, Aged About 13 Years, Through Natural Guardian Mother Rajmata Padmini Devi, Resident Of City Palace, Jaipur Through Power Of Attorney Thakur Narain Singh S/o Late Shri Thakur Man Singh, Resident Of Siras House, Gangapole, Jaipur. 1/2. H.s. Rajmata Padmini Devi W/o Late Shri Maharaja Sawai Bhawani Singh, Aged About 68 Years, Resident Of City Palace, Jaipur Through Power Of Attorney Thakur Narain Singh S/o Late Shri Thakur Man Singh, Resident Of Siras House, Gangapole, Jaipur. 1/3. Princes Diya Kumari D/o Late Shri Maharaja Sawai Bhawani Singh W/o Maharaja Narendra Singh, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of City Palace, Jaipur Through Power Of Attorney Thakur Nrain Singh S/o Late Shri Thakur Man Singh, Resident Of Siras House, Gangapole, Jaipur. ----Respondents [2025:RJ-JP:16451] (2 of 6) [CMAP-38/2025] For Petitioner(s) : Mr. G.S. Gill, AAG For Respondent(s) : Dr. Ram Kishan Sharma, Adv with Mr. Bhrigu Sharma, Adv. Mr. Pranav Sharma, Adv and Mr. Palash, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment Date of Judgment :: 21 /0 4 /2025 By this order, application filed by the applicants under Section 151 CPC for recalling the order dated 06.12.2024 is being decided. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants filed a civil first appeal against the judgment and decree dated 24.11.2024 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast track) No.5, Jaipur Metropolitan in Civil Suit No.155/2005 titled as ‘Brigadier Maharaja Sawai Bhawani Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another. On account of non-presence on behalf of the appellants-applicants, the said appeal was dismissed vide order dated 20.11.2023. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the applicants filed a restoration application and the said restoration application was registered as S.B. Civil Restoration Application No.166/2024. The restoration application was allowed vide order dated 28.11.2024 subject to deposition of cost of Rs.5,000/- by the applicants with the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority within a week from that day. Learned counsel for the applicants also submits that due to communication gap between the office of the Additional Advocate General and the Jaipur Development Authority, the said amount of [2025:RJ-JP:16451] (3 of 6) [CMAP-38/2025] cost of Rs.5,000/- could not be deposited within stipulated period i.e. one week, on account of non-deposition of the amount of cost, the said restoration application was again listed before this Court on 06.12.2024. This Court observed that deposition amount of cost was a condition precedent, so no further order was required to be passed in the matter. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that applicants have deposited the amount of cost of Rs.5,000/- on 10.01.2025. Delay in depositing the cost be condoned and order dated 06.12.2024 passed by this Court be recalled and in the interest of justice, appeal filed by the applicants be adjudicated on merit instead of technicalities. Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance upon the judgment passed in the case of Sheo Raj Singh (deceased) through LRs & Ors. Vs. Union of India and Another in Civil Appeal No.5867 of 2015 decided on 9 October, 2023; Learned counsel for the non-applicants has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicants and submitted that applicants was not serious for adjudication of the appeal filed by them. This Court vide order dated 20.11.2023 dismissed the appeal because none had appeared on behalf of the appellants-applicants in the Court even after the second round. Learned counsel for the non-applicants also submits that previously, on account of non-presence, the applicants filed an application under Order 1 Rule 8A CPC read with Section 151 CPC and under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC were dismissed in the year 2017. Learned counsel for the non-applicants further submits that after dismissal of the appeal, the applicants filed the restoration [2025:RJ-JP:16451] (4 of 6) [CMAP-38/2025] application with a delay of 59 days. The delay was condoned and appeal was ordered to be restored vide order dated 28.11.2024 subject to deposition of cost of Rs.5,000/- within week therefrom. Learned counsel for the non-applicants further submits that the said order dated 28.11.2024 was passed in the presence of learned counsel for the applicants. The applicants had to comply with the said order within a week but the applicants did not comply the same till 06.12.2024. On the said date, learned counsel for the applicants was not present. As per the office report, cost was not deposited by the applicants, so this Court rightly ordered that deposition of cost of Rs.5,000/- was a condition precedent. So, restoration of appeal could not be processed. Learned counsel for the non-applicants also submits that applicants have deposited the cost on 10.01.2025 without any permission of this Court seeking extension of time. The applicants were never serious regarding the appeal. So, no ground is made out for recalling the order dated 06.12.2024 passed by this Court. So, the present application filed by the applicants being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the non-applicants has placed reliance upon the following judgment:- (1) Delhi Development Authority Vs. Tejpal and Others reported in (2024) 7 SCC 433; (2) University of Delhi Vs. Union of India and Others reported in (2020) 13 SCC 745; (3) Bhdhia Swain and Others Vs. Gopinath Deb and Others reported in (1999) 4 SCC 396; (4) Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 600; (5) H. Guruswamy and Others Vs. [2025:RJ-JP:16451] (5 of 6) [CMAP-38/2025] A. Krishnaiah Since Deceased by LRs reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 54; (6) Daya Engg. Works (Sleeper) Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Another reported in 2023 SCC Online Del 178 and (7) Union of India Vs. Tenzing Construction reported in (2022) 3 Gauhati Law Reports 143. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned counsel for the non- applicants. It is an admitted position that on 20.11.2023, learned counsel for the applicants was not present even after the second round. So, this Court dismissed the appeal filed by the applicants. The applicants had filed the restoration application after the period of limitation. On 28.11.2024, delay in filing the restoration application was condoned and in the interest of justice, restoration application filed by the applicants was allowed for deposition of cost of Rs.5,000/- by the applicants with the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority within a week from the said date. On that day, learned counsel for the applicants was present and the said order was passed in his presence. In recalling application, the applicants have stated that there was a communication gap between the office of the Additional Advocate General and the Jaipur Development Authority, therefore, the said amount could not be deposited within a week, whereas the restoration order was self-explanatory. The applicants had to deposit the amount of cost within the stipulated period i.e. one week from the date of passing the order dated 28.11.2024. As per office report, case was listed on 06.12.2024 as the applicants had not deposited the amount of cost imposed by this Court within the [2025:RJ-JP:16451] (6 of 6) [CMAP-38/2025] stipulated period. So, this Court has ordered that deposition of the amount of cost was condition precedent for the restoration of the appeal but the cost was not deposited and this Court also observed that the order dated 28.11.2024 was self-explanatory. On the said date i.e. 28.11.2024, learned counsel for the applicants was present but he had not sought more time for deposition of the cost. Pursuant to the order dated 28.11.2024, applicants had deposited the amount of cost on 10.01.2025 without seeking the permission of this Court by their own wish. During the course of the arguments, learned counsel for the applicants failed to apprise the Court that what was the miscommunication between the office of the Additional Advocate General and the Jaipur Development Authority. So, in my considered opinion, applicants failed to show any bonafide cause for recalling of the order dated 06.12.2024. So, the present civil miscellaneous application filed by the applicants being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand, disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J AVINASH GULERIA /55