Janardan Singh & Others vs State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) & ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 2725 Jhar

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                      (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)
                          S. A. No. 237 of 2016
                                ......

Janardan Singh & Others ........... Appellants Versus State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) & Others ........ Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO (Through : Video Conferencing) .......

For the Appellants : Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents :

.......

05/05.08.2021 The second appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 30.01.2016 and decree signed on dated 12.02.2016 passed by learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-XI, Hazaribagh in Title Appeal No. 11/2003, whereby the learned lower appellate court has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment dated 09.08.1991 and decree signed on 24.08.1991 passed by learned Sub-ordinate Judge-III, Hazaribagh in Title Suit No. 38/69 and 63/89.

It appears that Stamp Reporter has pointed out defects on 09.06.2016 and thereafter the matter was listed before Joint Registrar (Judicial) for removing the defects on 16.06.2016 and two weeks time was granted to the appellants to remove the defect, even then the defects have not been removed. Thereafter, the matter was listed before the Lawazima of Registrar General on 08.07.2016, but nobody appeared on behalf of the appellants, however, two weeks' time was granted to the appellants to remove the defects, even then, the defects have not been removed.

Thereafter, the matter was listed before the Coordinate Bench on 10.08.2018, but till date defects have not been removed including the filing of deficit court fees of Rs.3377/-.

Office note reveals that Defect nos. 1 & 15 as pointed out vide S.R. dated 09.06.2016 have not been removed properly.

Office note further reveals that Defect nos. 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 12, 16 to 18, 20 & 21 as pointed out vide S.R. dated 09.06.2016 have not been removed.

Defects are as follows:-

Defect no. 1 - Name of appellant no. 3 may be verified and corrected as per c.c. of decree under appeal. Defect no. 2 - Appellant no. 1, 1(a) of c.c. of decree under appeal has not been made party in this memo with complete details. Defect no. 4 - Appellant no. 3, 4, 14, 39, 41, 44(d), 45 of c.c. of decree under appeal has not appeared as party in this memo. Defect no. 7 - Appellant no. 11(c) of decree not made party in this memo.

Defect no. 8 - It appears that name of two parties are give at serial no. 67 of memo (serial no. 28 (c) of decree). Hence it may be verified.

Defect no. 9 - Appellant no. 69, 75, 76 of c.c. of decree under appeal has not been made party in this memo with complete details. Defect no. 12 - Name of appellant no. 81, 88 of c.c. of decree not mentioned at memo.

Defect no. 15 - name of respondent no. 42, 73, 77 of this memo may be verified and corrected as per c.c. of decree under appeal. Defect no. 16 - Synopsis may be filed.

Defect no. 17 - Appellant no. 14 has been represented through his natural guardian hence if appellant is minor it may be mentioned. Defect no. 18 - Address portion of appellant no. 48, 49, 72, 73, 77, 78, 79, 104, 105, 107, 108, 123 of this memo may be mentioned as per c.c. of decree under appeal.

Defect no. 20 - Address (Village name) of respondent no. 82 to 84 may be verified and given as per c.c. of decree under appeal. Defect no. 21 - At the address of appellant no. 93 to 95 of this memo village name is mentioned as 'Reva'. However at decree it is given as Reva and as 'Rikwa' also. It may be verified and corrected.

For removing defect no. 19, c.c. of decree under appeal sent down to court below which is returned after necessary correction and according to that, correction is required in memo of appeal by learned Advocate.

Learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Sandeep Verma, has prayed for two weeks time after physical court starts for removing the defects as well as to deposit deficit court fee of Rs. 3377/-.

Considering the same, two weeks' time after the physical court starts is granted to learned counsel for the appellants to remove the defects as pointed out by the office, failing which, this appeal shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Bench, as the appeal is of the year 2016.

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Sunil/-