BHERU LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the applicants.

(2.) APPLICANTS, who are said to be legal representatives of deceased-appellant Bheru Lal, have filed this application for restoration of the appeal on 02.03.2012, which was dismissed in default way back on 31.08.2004, along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 2710 days i.e. about 6- years.

(3.) SUBMISSION of the learned counsel for applicants cannot be said to be correct or bonafide, in the facts and circumstances of the present case. No explanation of whatsoever nature has been given as to why steps were not taken for substitution of legal representatives of deceased-appellant, even in the application for restoration of the appeal or in the application seeking permission to file the present application. Even if the case was not marked by Counsel, then it was a duty of the applicants to move an application for substitution of their names in place of deceased-appellant and to find out the latest position of the case during the period from 20.02.2000 to 31.08.2004. Even after dismissal of the appeal in 2004, neither legal representatives of sole appellant, nor their Counsel took trouble to find out the latest position of the case.