Jharkhand High Court
C.M.P./1096/2022 of SMT CHANDRA MANI DEVI Vs ASHOK BHAGAT on 20 December 2024
COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 1096 of 2022 ------ Smt. Chandra Mani Devi & Anr. … Petitioners Versus Ashok Bhagat & Ors. … Opposite Parties ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Ayush Aditya, Advocate : Mr.
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 RANCHIC.M.P. No. 1096 of 2022
------
Smt. Chandra Mani Devi & Anr. … Petitioners
Versus
Ashok Bhagat & Ors.
…
Opposite Parties
------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Ayush Aditya, Advocate : Mr. Akash Deep, Advocate
------
Order No.05 Dated- 20.12.2024
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.
No one turns up on behalf of the opposite parties in-spite of repeated calls though the opposite parties have put their appearance through a lawyer.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that this civil miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioners for restoration of S.A. No. 34 of 2019 to its original file. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that S.A. No. 34 of 2019 was dismissed for non-compliance of the peremptory order of this Court dated 14.01.2021 to deposit the deficit court fee as well as to remove the defects within 30 days after the physical court starts. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that due to some unavoidable circumstances, the counsel for the petitioners could not remove the defects within the stipulated time which resulted in dismissal of S.A. No. 34 of 2019. It is also submitted that the deficit court fees has already been deposited. It is then submitted that non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 14.01.2021 was neither deliberate nor intentional. It is next submitted that the petitioners have very good grounds to agitate in the said S.A. No. 34 of 2019 and unless S.A. No. 34 of 2019 is restored to its original file, the petitioners will be highly prejudiced. Hence, it is submitted that the S.A. No. 34 of 2019 be restored to its original file.
Considering the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, S.A. No. 34 of 2019 is restored to its original file to the stage at which, it was before its dismissal.
List S.A. No. 34 of 2019 under the appropriate heading after a week.
Sonu-Gunjan/
.(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J)