[2026:RJ-JP:27437] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 107/2018 URN: WRW / 178U / 2018 Neetu Bugalia D/o Shri P.l. Bugalia, aged about 39 years, Resident Of 192, Awho, Ambabari, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Home Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Director General-Cum-Inspector General Of Police, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Saxena with Ms. Neha Swami For Respondent(s) : Mr. Saumitra Chaturvedi, Dy. GC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Order 17/07/2026 This review petition, which is reported to be time barred by 6956 days, is accompanied with an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Reiterating the averments made in the application as also in the additional affidavit dated 04.04.2022 filed by her, learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that after passing of the order dated 18.02.1999 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5354/1997, the order under review, she had filed another Writ Petition No.7519/2010 which came to be dismissed by this Court vide order dated 18.10.2016 however, with a liberty to file a review petition against the order dated 18.02.1999 and thereafter, since, [2026:RJ-JP:27437] (2 of 3) [WRW-107/2018] her father was suffering from various ailments, as is reflected from the medical prescriptions-part of the additional affidavit, she could not file the review petition in time. He, therefore, prays that the application seeking condonation of delay be allowed and the delay in preferring the review petition be condoned. Per contra, learned counsel for the review non-petitioner, opposing the submissions, prayed for dismissal of the application. Heard. Considered. The order dated 18.10.2016 reads as under: “Counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition as he will advise the client to file a review petition against the order dated 18.02.1999 in SBCWP No.5354/1997. Permission as sought is granted. The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn as prayed for.” A perusal of the aforesaid order reflects that the counsel for the petitioner had sought permission only to withdraw the writ petition and to advise the client to file a review petition and the permission so sought was granted. Neither any permission was sought to file a review petition nor, it was granted. Be that as it may, despite withdrawal of the writ petition way back on 18.10.2016, the review petition came to be filed as late as on 05.04.2018, i.e., with a delay of more than 17 months. While, the application under Section 5 is completely silent as to the reason for this inordinate delay, in her additional affidavit dated 04.04.2022, she has pleaded illness of her father. It is stated in [2026:RJ-JP:27437] (3 of 3) [WRW-107/2018] the affidavit that her father was suffering from depression and psychiatric problem since 2016 and also suffered from hypertension and severe diabetes which led to severe kidney disease. The prescription slips from 29.08.2015 to 20.01.2018 are annexed along with the additional affidavit. However, this Court is not convinced with the reasoning so offered and does not find the same to be sufficient to prevent her from filing the review petition in time. As already observed, the subsequent writ petition was withdrawn by her on 18.10.2016 and thereafter, it took her more than 17 months to file the review petition. Most of the ailments portrayed in the affidavit are age related and nothing is borne out from the prescription slips to demonstrate that condition of her father was so serious so as to prevent her from filing the review petition in time. Further, the last prescription slip is of 20.01.2018 still, the review petition was filed on 05.04.2018, i.e., much beyond the period of limitation for its filing. In the conspectus of aforesaid analysis, this Court is not convinced that the review petitioner was prevented on account of any sufficient cause to file the review petition in time. Resultantly, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is dismissed. Consequently, the review petition also stands dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly. (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J 10/DIKSHA