SATYA NARAYAN Vs. MANGI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Satya Narayan, Appellant filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed, dated 14.07.1994 of land measuring one bigha against Mangi Lal in the year 1997 and that Civil Suit No. 9/97 was dismissed by Civil Judge (S.D.) Jaipur District, Jaipur on 22.08.2008. Against that judgment , Satya Narayan filed an appeal in the court of District Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur and that Appeal No. 62/2008 was dismissed in default by the District Judge, Jaipur District. Then a restoration application was filed and the appeal was restored on 07.08.2009 by District Judge, Jaipur District and the case was listed on 22.10.2009 for arguments on appeal, but on 22.10.2009 again, no one was present for the appellant, then the case was fixed for 23.10.2009 but again on 23.10.2009 no one was present for the appellant even up to 4 p.m. and so the District Judge, Jaipur District had no option but to dismiss the appeal on the said date and the appeal was dismissed accordingly.

(2.) Restoration application was filed by the appellant in the lower court again with a delay of eleven and half months on 03.08.2010 and that restoration application was dismissed by District Judge , Jaipur District, Jaipur on 01.11.2010 an account of delay. The order dated 01.11.2010 passed by the District Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur in relation to Appeal No. 62/2008 has been challenged by the appellant Satya Narayan in this Civil Misc. Appeal. I have perused the impugned order and I have heard arguments of both parties , I have also gone through the following rulings submitted by the appellant-

(3.) Looking to the law laid down in the aforesaid rulings, it can be said that this court has ample power to condone the delay in the interest of justice if the facts so demand. But simultaneously it is also true that if the appellant is found gross negligent in prosecuting his case before the courts then this court is not supposed to be unduly liberal towards such a negligent person and the other party should not be made to suffer unnecessarily in such type of matters. In the case in hand appeal of the appellant was dismissed so many times by the first appellate court and the appellant was also found defaulter in paying the costs in the lower court and the restoration application was also filed with enormous delay in the court below . Sufficient cause was not shown by the appellant for the delay, neither to the court below nor to this court. I understand that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical ground but it is capable of removing injustice and it is accepted to do so but in the case in hand it cannot be said that refusal to restore this appeal will result in a meritorious matter being thrown out and the cause of justice will be defeated. In the circumstances of the case this court is not desirous now to give any more latitude towards such a grossly negligent appellant and hence this appeal deserves dismissal which is hereby dismissed along with the stay petition.