Jharkhand High Court
C.M.P./107/2012 of MAHADEO MAHTO And ANR Vs UNION OF INDIA And ORS on 20 December 2013
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 107 of 2012 Mahadeo Mahto & Anr. .... Petitioners Vs. Union of India & Ors.... ... ... ... ... Respondents ------ CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH. ------ For the Petitioners: Mr. Sanjay Prasad, Advocate
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 107 of 2012
Mahadeo Mahto & Anr. ....Petitioners
Vs.
Union of India & Ors................ Respondents------ CORAM:HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH.
------
For the Petitioners: Mr. Sanjay Prasad, AdvocateFor the Respondents: Mr. Kautav Panda, Advocate
------
th------ Dated 20 December, 2013
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as respondents.
2. The present restoration application has been preferred seeking restoration of the earlier restoration application, being C.M.P. No. 346 of 2010, which was dismissed for default. The said C.M.P. No. 346 of 2010 in turn was preferred for restoration of L.P.A. No. 192 of 2009, which was also dismissed for non-prosecution on 27.07.2010.
3. On perusal of the record of L.P.A., it reveals that the L.P.A. itself was dismissed on the third occasion, as also on the earlier occasion there was no representation on the part of the appellant and on the fateful date even in the revised list, no one appeared on behalf of appellant on both calls. The earlier restoration application, C.M.P. No. 346 of 2010 was again dismissed for non-prosecution on 29.02.2012, as no one appeared on behalf of petitioners to press the same. Petitioners has now sought restoration of the earlier C.M.P, which as aforesaid was dismissed for default.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has sought to make out a ground that he could not attend the court on account of illness in his family. It further appears from the conduct of the petitioners that he was not vigilant in pursuing the matter, which has led to dismissal of the L.P.A as well as earlier restoration petition for default.
Under these circumstances, we do not find any reason to allow this C.M.P, which is accordingly dismissed.
(R. Banumathi, C.J.)
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)
Alankar/Sudhir-