[2026:RJ-JP:31463-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3569/2026 CNR: RJHC020734782026 | URN: CMA / 6165U / 2026 Rajasthan Urban Infrastructure Development Project, The Registered Office At Avs Building, Jawahar Circle, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur Through Its Executive Engineer, Ruidp, Udaipur. ----Appellant Versus M/s M.s. Khurana Engineering Ltd., Registered Office At Jay, 3Rd Floor, Ankur Complex, Naranapura, Ahmedabad- 390015 Present Address- 2Nd Floor, Msk Complex, 120 Feet Ring Rd, University Area, Ahmedabad, Gujarat 380015 ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rishabh Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Ms. Lipi Garg HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order (Oral) 11/08/2026 Per: Arun Monga, J. 1. The Appellant seeks quashing of the order dated 14.07.2026 passed by the learned Commercial Court No. 2, Jaipur. By that order, the Appellant's Restoration Application, C.I.S. No. 282/2026 (Case No. 39/2026), was rejected. The said application had in fact sought restoration of the earlier Restoration Application No. 383/2025, which too was dismissed for non-appearance, just like the objection petition was dismissed in default on an earlier occasion/hearing. 2. Briefly stated, the Appellant is a Government organization, challenged an award dated 19.04.2012 under Section 34 of the [2026:RJ-JP:31463-DB] (2 of 5) [CMA-3569/2026] Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The learned Commercial Court stayed the arbitral award by order dated 20.11.2024. Thereafter, due to the counsel's inadvertent lapse in noting the date in his diary, none appeared on 11.07.2025. The Section 34 petition was dismissed for non-appearance. The Appellant filed Restoration Application No. 383/2025 on 01.08.2025. That application was dismissed in default on 30.08.2025, later restored, and listed on 12.01.2026. 2.2 On 12.01.2026 also, counsel for the Appellant could not appear. The assisting counsel was away owing to the demise of his grandmother on 05.01.2026. The date consequently went unnoted in the diary. The arguing counsel had enquired about the matter on 10.01.2026, but the assisting counsel was unavailable. On learning of the dismissal, the Appellant moved a fresh application seeking restoration of the Restoration Application. The learned Commercial Court dismissed it by order dated 14.07.2026 on two grounds. First, the application was not supported by the counsel's affidavit. Second, the signature of the Officer-in-Charge did not match the one on the earlier application. 2.3 Meanwhile, the respondents have initiated execution proceedings on the arbitral award. 2.4. Hence the instant appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the absence on 12.01.2026 was unintentional and beyond the Appellant's control. The sudden bereavement in the junior counsel's family prevented the date from being marked in the diary or communicated to the arguing counsel. The WhatsApp correspondence shows that the arguing counsel had specifically sought the next date, which could not be conveyed for the said reason. [2026:RJ-JP:31463-DB] (3 of 5) [CMA-3569/2026] 3.1 He further submits that the defects noted in the order dated 14.07.2026, namely absence of the counsel's affidavit and the alleged signature mismatch, were merely procedural and curable. The Officer- in-Charge has never denied executing either application and continues to affirm the same. The alleged discrepancy could not, therefore, be treated as fatal. 3.2 He also contends that the learned Commercial Court needlessly compared the signatures on the two applications. The Officer-in-Charge had neither disputed the signatures nor alleged forgery. Such an exercise amounted to a fishing enquiry. Proceedings ought to be decided on merits, not terminated on curable procedural defects, more so when the Appellant stands deprived of a hearing on merits against the arbitral award. 3.3 Lastly, he submits that refusal to restore has caused serious and irreparable prejudice to the Appellant. In the interest of justice, the proceedings deserve to be restored so that the matter may be contested on merits. 4. Per contra, counsel for the respondent, who appears on advance service and submits that the Appellant's conduct preceding the impugned order does not inspire confidence. The Appellant is thus not entitled to restoration, and the appeal deserves dismissal with costs. 5. Having perused the case file and after hearing the learned counsels as above, we may at the very outset observe that we are in agreement with the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant as already noted here in above. 6. That aside, we find that on the fateful day when the matter was listed for final arguments before the learned Commercial Court on which they none appeared for the appellant and the reasons stated for the [2026:RJ-JP:31463-DB] (4 of 5) [CMA-3569/2026] same in the restoration application was that the counsel representing the appellant had noted the next date erroneously as the one other than it was actually fixed for. The absence of the counsel was thus not intentional for due to circumstances beyond his control and the application of the restoration application was duly supported with an affidavit of the competent authority of the appeal along with exchange of the whatsapp textual conversation. 7. In the absence of there being any material to disbelieve the aforesaid ordinarily the learned Commercial Court ought to have restored the objection petition on the application itself. However, the learned Commercial Court rather chose to take over padantic view in a mechanical way, perhaps being of the mind that the restoration would result in delay of proceedings. No doubt Courts are being just burdened in work but at the same time one should stay mindful that "Justice delayed is Justice denied", but "Justice hurried is Justice buried". The case in hands seems to be of later category. Taking wholesome view the appeal is allowed and the order impugned is set aside. 8. The Appellant's application seeking restoration of the objection petition stands allowed. Parties shall appear before the learned Commercial Court by moving an appropriate application. 9. The objection petition is restored to its original position. Considering that delay has occurred, albeit at the instance of the Appellant, and that a stay operates in its favour, counsel for the respondent requests that the petition be decided within two months of restoration. We do not deem it appropriate to fix a specific timeline. We only observe that the learned Commercial Court shall not grant unnecessary adjournments to either party. Since the matter already [2026:RJ-JP:31463-DB] (5 of 5) [CMA-3569/2026] stands fixed for final arguments, the same shall be heard and final order pronounced in due course. 10. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J (ARUN MONGA),J 66/Aman/Shivam