Mahendra Pd. Sah vs Gopal Pd. Yadav & Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 1662 Jhar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                 S.A. No. 472 of 2017
                            ------

    Mahendra Pd. Sah               .... .... .... Appellant
                            Versus
    Gopal Pd. Yadav & Anr.         .... .... .... Respondents
                            ------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

------

For the Appellant : Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Abhay Shankar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, Advocate

------

Order No.06 Dated- 19.04.2023 I.A. No.8067 of 2017 This interlocutory application has been filed with a prayer to condone the delay of 58 days in filing this second appeal though inadvertently, because of printing error in paragraph nos. 8, 11 and prayer portion, it has been mentioned that the delay is only for 50 days.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant came to Ranchi after obtaining the certified copy of the judgment and decree of Title Appeal No. 09 of 2015 but the Advocate of the appellant told him to obtain the judgment and decree of the learned trial court as well and again another application was filed for obtaining the certified copy of the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court, the same resulted in delay in filing this second appeal. It is next submitted that the appellant has very good grounds to agitate in this appeal and the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate and unless the delay in filing this appeal is condoned, the appellant will be highly prejudiced.

Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for condoning the delay in filing this appeal and submits that had the appellant being vigilant, he could have obtained original certified copy of the judgment and decree of the learned trial court which can be supplied within three days and there is no justifiable reason for the delay of 58 days in filing this appeal and the appellant has also not disclosed as to whether the appeal came to the appellant on 19th day of the passing of the judgment and decree. Hence, the same is vague and the appellant has deliberately delayed in filing the appeal to harass the respondents.

Considering the aforesaid facts, the delay in filing this appeal is condoned subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- by the appellant to the respondents through the learned counsel for the respondents appearing in the record within six weeks, failing which this conditional order shall not be given effect to and this interlocutory application shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Bench and consequently this appeal shall stand dismissed being barred by limitation.

It is made clear that in case, if the appellant files the proof of payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- by the appellant to the respondents through the learned counsel for the respondents appearing in the record within six weeks, this appeal shall be listed under the heading "Order XLI Rule 11 CPC" as the last chance.

This interlocutory application stands disposed of accordingly.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

S.A. No. 472 of 2017

Perusal of the record reveals that notice issued to the respondent no.1 in the matter of limitation has returned with the report that the respondent no.1 has died but no prayer for substitution has been made as yet.

Accordingly, this appeal abates against the respondent no.1.

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