Dropadi Devi & Ors vs Govindra @ Shukla & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 4172 Jhar

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                     SA No. 106 of 2014

         Dropadi Devi & Ors.                      .........          Appellants

                                       Versus

         Govindra @ Shukla & Ors.                 .........          Respondents

Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

For the Appellants : Mr. Devesh Krishna, Adv.

16 / 13.10.2022 Heard Learned counsel for the appellants.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that though this appeal was listed today to address the court as to whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by learned District Judge, IV Palamau at Daltonganj in Partition Appeal No. 21 of 2005 is nullity and if the same is nullity, whether the Second Appeal will lie? Learned counsel for the appellants submits that in fact, respondent no. 4 before the First Appellate Court died during the pendency of the said First Appeal even before hearing of the appeal started. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the appellants relying upon an order dated 18.08.2004 in Second Appeal no. 252 of 2002 of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Alimuddin Ansari vs Wasia Khatoon reported in 2004 4 JCR 700; 2005 3 JLJR 443, para 4 of which reads as under "4. I also make it clear that this order will not stand in the way of the appellants taking such steps as are permissible in the lower appellate court to have the decree reopened and to have the legal representatives of respondent no. 17 brought on record in that Court."

that he seeks permission of the court to withdraw the appeal with liberty to take steps that are permissible in law in the First Appellate Court to have decree re-opened and to have the legal representatives of the deceased respondent no. 4 brought on record.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, this Second Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. It is made clear that this order will not stand in the way of the appellants taking steps as are permissible in law in the First Appellate Court to have the decree re-opened and to have the legal representatives of the deceased respondent no. 4 and other dead respondent if any, brought on record.

In view of the dismissal of the appeal, all the pending interlocutory applications are disposed of being infructuous.

(ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Smita/-