Bankim Chandra Mahto & Others vs Anand Mahto & Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 1557 Jhar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                  S.A. No.88 of 2018
                            ------

Bankim Chandra Mahto & Others .... .... .... Appellants Versus Anand Mahto & Others .... .... .... Respondents

------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

------

For the Appellants : Mr. Bhaiya V. Kumar, Advocate Mr. Sudhansu Kr. Deo, Advocate

------

Order No.07 Dated- 11/04/2023 I.A. No.8718 of 2019 Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants does not press the instant interlocutory application.

Accordingly, this interlocutory application stands rejected as not pressed.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) I.A. No.2602 of 2023 Heard the learned counsel for the appellants.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that this interlocutory application has been filed with a prayer to extend the time and to send down the certified copy of the judgment and decree under appeal to the court concerned for correction. It is next submitted that the defect No.5 pointed out by the stamp reporter is that the respondent No.12 of this appeal is not a party to Title Appeal No.04 of 2007, the judgment and decree of which is impugned in this appeal, defect No.6 pointed out by the stamp reporter is that the respondent Nos.6 and 10 of the said Title Appeal No.04 of 2007 have not been impleaded as party in this appeal and the defect No.7 is that the nomenclature of Title Appeal No.04 of 2007 is mentioned as Civil Appeal No.04 of 2007. It is next submitted that the respondent No.12 of this appeal was the respondent No.6 of Title Appeal No.04 of 2007 but his name has inadvertently been mentioned as Sudhir Mahto in the decree but the learned counsel for the appellants has no answer as to why he has not made the respondent No.10 of Title Appeal No.04 of 2007 namely Adalat Mahto s/o Late Bharath Matho as a party to this appeal.

3. Since, the laches is on the part of the appellants themselves, no purpose would be served by sending the impugned judgment and decree of Title Appeal No.04 of 2007 to the court concerned.

4. Accordingly, the prayer to send down the judgment and decree under appeal passed in Title Appeal No.04 of 2007 is rejected and the prayer for extension of time is allowed for two weeks.

5. This interlocutory application stands disposed of.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) S.A. No.88 of 2018 The appellants are directed to remove the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter within two weeks from the date of this order, failing which, this appeal shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Bench.

The appellants are directed to file the certified copy of the appeal memo of Title Appeal No.04 of 2007.

List this appeal after removal of the defects.

Animesh/                                   (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)