Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Smt Ranjana Sharma vs Dheeraj Sharma And Ors on 17 February, 2021
Author: Prakash Gupta
Bench: Prakash Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Misc. Restoration Application No. 292/2015
In
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5219/2008
Smt. Ranjana Sharma W/o Shri Late Shri Uma Shamkar Sharma,
C/o Pandit Ramswarupji Water Works Colony, Bandikui, Jaipur
----Defendant/Petitioner
Versus
1. Dheeraj Sharma S/o Late Shri Prabhu Dayal Sharma, R/o
3-Ka-27, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur
2. Smt. Premlata Sharma W/o Late Shri Prabhu Dayal
Sharma, R/o 3-Ka-27, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur
3. Surendra Sharma S/o Late Shri Prabhu Dayal Sharma,
R/o 3-Ka-27, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur
4. Kalpana Sharma D/o Late Shri Prabhu Dayal Sharma, R/o
3-Ka-27, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur
5. Alpana Sharma D/o Late Shri Prabhu Dayal Sharma, R/o
3-Ka-27, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur
6. Devendra Sharma S/o Late Shri Prabhu Dayal Sharma,
R/o C-61, Thermal Colony, Kota
7. Additional District Judge, ADJ Court No. 4, District and
Sessions Court, Jaipur
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Veyankatesh Garg, Advocate HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA Order 17/02/2021 This application has been filed for restoration of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5219/2008 at its original number, which was (Downloaded on 20/02/2021 at 09:13:17 PM) (2 of 3) [WRES-292/2015] dismissed for non compliance of the order dated 9.9.2014 passed by this Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide per-emptory order dated 9.9.2014, this Court directed to file PF and notices of unserved respondents alongwith fresh address of respondent no.5 and four weeks' time was granted for the purpose. Although notices were filed, but inadvertently fresh address of respondent no.5 was not filed. Resultantly due to non compliance of the Court's order dated 9.9.2014, the writ petition was dismissed. Hence, the order dated 9.9.2014 be recalled and the writ petition be restored.
Heard. Considered.
From the material available on record, it is evident that in the year 2002, the plaintiff Dheeraj Sharma filed a civil suit for partition and permanent injunction against the defendants. In the said suit, defendant no. 4 Devendra Sharma and defendant no. 5 Smt. Ranjana Sharma, the present petitioner did not appear. Resultantly vide order dated 9.5.2007 ex-parte proceedings were drawn against him. Subsequently on the basis of compromise arrived at between the plaintiff and rest of the defendants, the suit was withdrawn by the plaintiff himself and the same was dismissed as such vide order dated 16.5.2007. The petitioner, who was one of the defendant before the trial court and against whom ex-parte proceedings were drawn, instead of filing an appropriate application before the trial court for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings, filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5219/2008 before this Court challenging the order dated 16.5.2007. Vide per- emptory order dated 15.2.2012, two weeks' time was granted to the petitioner to file required PF and notices with paper book sets, (Downloaded on 20/02/2021 at 09:13:17 PM) (3 of 3) [WRES-292/2015] but since correct notices were not filed, the writ petition was dismissed for non compliance of the order dated 15.2.2012. Subsequently on a restoration application no. 381/2012 having been filed by the petitioner, the writ petition was restored at its original number vide order dated 11.5.2012 passed by this Court. Thereafter again vide order dated 9.9.2014, the petitioner was granted four weeks' time for filing PF and notices of the unserved respondents with fresh address of respondent no.5, but since the same were not filed, the writ petition was dismissed for non compliance of the order dated 9.9.2014. Thereafter the present restoration application has been filed by the petitioner on 19.11.2014 for restoration of the writ petition. In this way, twice the restoration applications have been filed at the instance of the petitioner.
Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly in view of the fact that time and again the petitioner remained negligent in complying the orders passed by this Court, I find no ground to restore the writ petition at its original number moreso, at this belated stage, when no ground, much less sufficient ground has been shown in the restoration application for restoring the writ petition.
Accordingly, the restoration application filed by the petitioner being bereft of any merit is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly.
(PRAKASH GUPTA),J DILIP KHANDELWAL /19 (Downloaded on 20/02/2021 at 09:13:17 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)