Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Hangami Lal Paliwal vs Naresh & Ors on 6 March, 2017

Author: Sangeet Lodha

Bench: Sangeet Lodha

     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                      JODHPUR
                    S.B.Civil Revision No. 171 / 2014
Hangami Lal Paliwal S/o Shri Bhanwar Lalji, by caste Brahmin,

aged about 60 years, resident of Village Dhoinda, Tehsil & District

Rajsamand


                                                         ----Petitioner
                                 Versus
1. Naresh S/o Arjun Lal Brahmin, by caste Paliwal, R/o Village
Dhoinda, Tehsil & District Rajsamand.
2. Smt. Teena D/o Shri Arjun Lal, W/o Suresh Chandraji Brahmin,
by caste Paliwal, R/o Village Dipti, Tehsil & District Rajsamand, at
present Bhilwara.
3. Smt. Minakshi D/o Shri Arjun Lal, W/o Shri Himmat Lal,
Brahmin Paliwal, R/o Sahada, Tehsil Gangapur, at present resident
of J.K. Colony, Kankroli, District Rajsamand.
4. Ms. Ranu D/o shri Arjun Lalji Brahmin Paliwal, R/o Village
Dhoidnda, Tehsil & District Rajsamand.
5. Ms. Swarna D/o Shri Dhoinda, Tehsil & District Rajsamand.
                                                    ------Plaintiffs
6. Arjun Lal S/o Bhanwar Lalji Brahmin Paliwal, R/o Village
Dhoidnda, Tehsil & District Rajsamand.
                                                Proforma Respondent
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s)    : Mr. R.S. Rathore


_____________________________________________________
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA

Order 06/03/2017 This revision petition filed by the petitioner is reported to be barred by limitation for 167 days.

The revision petition is not accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

(2 of 2) [CR-171/2014] Office has pointed out certain other defects as well. The defects were pointed out by the Registry in the year 2014. Even after a lapse of more than 2 ½ years, the petitioner has not cared to remove the defects.

The revision petition is dismissed as barred by limitation.

(SANGEET LODHA)J. Ravi Kh./59