Jharkhand High Court
C.M.P./720/2024 of RANJU DEVI Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 20 December 2024
COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 720 of 2024 ------ Ranju Devi, aged about 35 years, W/o Late Rameshwar Mahto @ Ramesh Mahto, R/o Village –Piratu, O.P. Rajrappa Project, P.O. –Potamdagga, P.S. –Ramgarh, District – Ramgarh, Jharkhand … Petitioner Versus 1.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHIC.M.P. No. 720 of 2024
------
Ranju Devi, aged about 35 years, W/o Late Rameshwar Mahto @ Ramesh Mahto, R/o Village –Piratu, O.P. Rajrappa Project, P.O. –Potamdagga, P.S. –Ramgarh, District –Ramgarh, Jharkhand … Petitioner
Versus
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Most. Kamali, aged about 35 years, W/o Late Rameshwar Mahto @ Ramesh Mahto, R/o village –Piratu, O.P. Rajrappa Project, P.O. Potamdagga, P.S. Ramgarh, District –Ramgarh, State-Jharkhand.Mahto @ Ramesh Mahto, R/o village –Piratu, O.P. Rajrappa Project, P.O. Potamdagga, P.S. Ramgarh, District –Ramgarh, State-Jharkhand.
3. Anand Mahto, aged about 24 years, R/o Mohlla –Sarhul Nagar, Khijuria Tola, Bariatu Road, P.O.+P.S. –Bariatu, District –Ranchi.Nagar, Khijuria Tola, Bariatu Road, P.O.+P.S. –Bariatu, District –Ranchi.
4. Rakesh Kumar, aged about 20 years, R/o Mohlla –Sarhul Nagar, Khijuria Tola, Bariatu Road, P.O.+P.S. –Bariatu, Ranchi.Nagar, Khijuria Tola, Bariatu Road, P.O.+P.S. –Bariatu, Ranchi.
5. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Main Road, At & P.O. –Ramgarh Cantt, P.S. –Ramgarh, District –Ramgarh.Ramgarh Cantt, P.S. –Ramgarh, District –Ramgarh.
6. Ramchandra Kumar Mahto, S/o Sri Sarju Mahto, R/o –Village –Potamdagga, P.S. –Ramgarh, District –Ramgarh, (Jharkhand) Village –Potamdagga, P.S. –Ramgarh, District –Ramgarh, (Jharkhand)
…
Opposite Parties
------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, AAG-III
: Ms. Rishi Bharti, AC to AAG-III
: Mr. Ankit Apurva, Advocate
: Mr. Mithilesh Kumar, Advocate
------
Order No.03 Dated- 20.12.2024 I.A. No.8342 of 2024
Heard the parties.
This interlocutory application has been filed with a prayer to condone the delay of 466 days in filing this civil miscellaneous petition for restoration of the M.A. No. 185 of 2021 to its original file.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Mr.
C.D. Singh, Advocate who was representing the petitioner in the miscellaneous appeal was ill for quite some time due to old age and was not attending the court and when the matter was listed before this Court on 06.02.2023, nobody appeared, which resulted in dismissal of the miscellaneous appeal but the petitioner being a villager was unaware about the said development. The case was looked after by the husband of the petitioner. Mr. C.D. Singh, Advocate, took several times to confirm the status of miscellaneous appeal no. 185 of 2021 and by the time, the husband of the petitioner could know that the case has been dismissed, the delay has occurred. It is next submitted that the petitioner has very good grounds to agitate in this civil miscellaneous petition and unless the delay in filing this civil miscellaneous petition is condoned, the petitioner will be highly prejudiced.
The learned counsel for the opposite parties has no serious objection.
Considering the aforesaid facts, the delay of 466 days in filing this instant civil miscellaneous petition is condoned.
This interlocutory application stands disposed of accordingly.
.(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J)
C.M.P. No. 720 of 2024
Heard the parties.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this civil miscellaneous petition has been filed at the instance of the petitioner for restoration of M.A. No. 185 of 2021 to its original file. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that M.A. No. 185 of 2021 was dismissed for non-compliance of the peremptory order of this Court dated 06.02.2023 to remove the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter. It is then submitted that Mr. C.D. Singh, Advocate who was representing the appellant in the said M.A. No. 185 of 2021 was ill for quite some time due to old age and was not attending the court and when the matter was listed on 06.02.2023, nobody could appear on his behalf as a result of which the appellant was not communicated about the listing of the case and the peremptory time for removal of the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter. It is next submitted that the petitioner has very good grounds to agitate in the said M.A. No. 185 of 2021 and M.A. No. 185 of 2021 is restored to its original file, the petitioner will be highly prejudiced. Hence, it is submitted that the M.A. No. 185 of 2021 be restored to its original file.
Considering the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, M.A. No. 185 of 2021 is restored to its original file to the stage at which, it was before its dismissal.
List M.A. No. 185 of 2021 under the appropriate heading before the appropriate Bench, after a week.
This civil miscellaneous petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sonu-Gunjan/
.(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J)