Mansoor Ali Khan vs M/S Hindustan Petroleum ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4111 Jhar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                   S.A. No.80 of 2012
                             ------

    Mansoor Ali Khan                    .... ....  .... Appellant
                             Versus

M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Ranchi & Others .... .... .... Respondents

------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

------

For the Appellant : Mr. Sudhir Kr. Sharma, Advocate

------

Order No.08 Dated- 11/10/2022 I.A. No.11774 of 2019 Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this interlocutory application has been filed with a prayer to pass appropriate orders for ignoring the defect No.2 pointed out by the stamp reporter in this appeal. It is next submitted that this Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 21.04.2012 in Eviction Appeal No.03 of 2010 passed by the Principal District Judge, Giridih and the stamp reporter has pointed out the defect No.2 that the name of the proforma respondent Nos.6-16 does not find place in the certified copy of the decree under appeal. It is next submitted that as per the order dated 17.12.2015 in this Second Appeal, this Court directed for correction of the decree and filing the certified copy of the same. It is next submitted that the respondent Nos.6-16 were parties in Eviction Suit No.08 of 2004. It is also submitted that the appellant filed an application vide Misc. Civil Appeal No.193 of 2019 in Eviction Appeal No.03 of 2010 before the Principal District Judge, Giridih for correction in the appellate decree and the Principal District Judge, Giridih observed that as the proforma defendant Nos.6-16 of Eviction Suit No.08 of 2004 were not arrayed as respondents in the appeal memo, hence, their names do not appear in the judgment and decree passed in Eviction Appeal No.03 of 2010. Hence, it is submitted that the defect No.2 pointed out by the stamp reporter be ignored.

3. Considering the fact that the respondent Nos.6-16 are not parties to impugned judgment and decree under the appeal and the appellants of this appeal where the appellants before the first appellate court also but they chose not to implead the respondent number 6-16 of this appeal before the First Appellate Court, hence, this Court is not inclined to ignore the defect No.2 pointed out by the stamp reporter.

4. Accordingly, this interlocutory application is dismissed.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) I.A. No.10744 of 2019 Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this interlocutory application has been filed with a prayer to extend the time for a period of eight weeks for removing the defect No.2.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant prays for two weeks' time to remove the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter.

4. Prayer for time is allowed.

5. It is made clear that if the defects are not removed within two weeks from the date of this order then this appeal shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Bench.

6. This interlocutory application stands disposed of.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) S.A. No.80 of 2012 List this appeal after removal of the defects.

Animesh/                                    (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)