1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- WRIT RESTORATION No. 97 of 2007 STATE & ORS V/S VIRDA RAM BHATI & ANR Mr. KL THAKUR,AAG, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. SG OJHA, for the respondent Date of Order : 17.4.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI KISHAN SWAROOP CHAUDHARI,J. ORDER ----- Heard learned counsel for the parties. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the restoration application is allowed, and the main appeal is restored to its oroginal number. Thereafter at the request of the learned conunsel for the parties, the appeal has been heard on the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Since the effected party being respondent no.1 is represented, the service of respondent no.2 being the Tribunal need not be awaited. The Registry has reported the appeal to be barred by 142 days. The reason given in the application is that the order was passed by the learned Single Judge on 2 14.2.2005, the application for certified copy was submitted on 17.2.2005 which was received on 28.2.2005, and was sent to the officer in charge on 11.3.2005 who sent it to the Additional Director on 11.3.2005 itself. However, it was further forwarded by the Additional Director to the Dy. Secretary only on 25.4.2005, and the matter remained pending for sanction till 6.8.2005, and even thereafter again the matter remained pending and the appeal was not filed because the certified copy was not enclosed with the papers. It would suffice to say that the things only depict the wholly careless attitude on the part of the persons concerned in not taking due attention and care of the period of limitation prescribed while dealing with the matter, and in not keeping complete track of the record. It may by the way be observed that the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned judgment on the basis of Full Bench judgment of this Court in State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Farooq Ahmed reported in (2005(1) WLC(Raj.)-1). The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is, therefore, dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed as time barred. ( KISHAN SWAROOP CHAUDHARI ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /Sushil/