Pashupati Rabidas vs Munni Devi & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 3310 Jhar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                    S.A. No. 570 of 2003
                            ------

Pashupati Rabidas .... .... .... Appellant Versus Munni Devi & Ors. .... .... .... Respondents

------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

------

For the Appellants : Md. Shamim Akhtar, Advocate For the Respondents : Anoop Kr. Mehta, Advocate

------

Order No.17 Dated- 22.08.2022 I.A. No.7153 of 2022 Heard the parties.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that this interlocutory application has been filed with a prayer for treating the defect nos. 2 & 3, as pointed out by the stamp reporter as removed and also to ignore the defect no.1, as pointed out by the stamp reporter.

It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the defect no.1, as pointed out by the stamp reporter is that the suit value in the judgment and decree as mentioned in the trial court and appellate court differs from the value mentioned at page no.26 of certified copy of judgment of trial court. It is next submitted that the suit value at page no.26 of the trial court has been mentioned as Rs.1,000/- and though the defendant claimed that the property valued at Rs.50,000/- but this contention was rejected by the trial court.

Considering the aforesaid facts, the defect no.1, as pointed out by the stamp reporter is ignored.

So far as the defect nos. 2 & 3 are concerned, it relates to filing the typed copy of the appellate court judgment and typed copy of the annexures to I.A. No. 5771 of 2014 be filed.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the defect nos. 2 & 3 may be treated as removed as the typed copy of the appellate court judgment and typed copy of the annexures to I.A. No. 5771 of 2014 have already been filed with this application. Hence, it is submitted that the defect nos. 2 & 3 be ignored.

Considering the aforesaid facts, the defect nos. 2 & 3 as pointed out by the stamp reporter are ignored.

This interlocutory application is disposed of accordingly.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

S.A. No.570 of 2003 The learned counsel for the appellant prays for time. Prayer for time is allowed as the last chance. List this appeal after four weeks.

Sonu-Gunjan/- (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)