Shankar Sahu vs Smt. Champa Devi & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 2694 Jhar

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                         SA No. 20 of 2023

           Shankar Sahu                       ......       Appellant

                                     Versus


           Smt. Champa Devi & Ors.            .........      Respondents

Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

For the Appellant : Mr. K.K.Ambastha , Adv.

04 / 08.08.2023 Heard.

The appellant is directed to remove the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter, within eight weeks, failing which, this appeal shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Bench.

(ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Smita/-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI SA No. 14 of 2023

Bhuneshwari Devi ...... Appellant

Versus

Sachidanand Prasad Agrawal & Ors.

......... Respondents

Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

For the Appellant : Ms. Chaitali C. Sinha, Adv.

04 / 08.08.2023 Heard.

The appellant is directed to remove the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter, within eight weeks, failing which, this appeal shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Bench.

(ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Smita/-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI MA No. 224 of 2019

Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Hazaribag, Jharkhand ...... Appellant

Versus

Chinta Devi & Ors. ......... Respondents

Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

For the Appellant : Mr. Manish Kumar , Adv. For the Respondent s : Mr. Prabhat Kr. Sinha , Adv.

Mr. Pratyush Kumar , Adv.

08 / 08.08.2023 Heard.

Learned counsel for the respondents prays for time.

Prayer for time is allowed as the last chance. List this appeal after two weeks.

(ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Smita/-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI MA No. 261 of 2019

United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Dhanbad ...... Appellant

Versus

Smt. Nilam Jaiswal & Ors.

......... Respondent

Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

For the Appellant : Mr. Ashutosh Anand , Adv. For the Respondent s : Mr. Birendra Kumar, , Adv.

08 / 08.08.2023 Heard.

Perusal of the record reveals that vide order dated 27.04.2023, the prayer for time was allowed to the appellant as the last chance.

Learned counsel for the appellant again prays for time.

Learned counsel for the appellant again prays for time.

Prayer for time is allowed subject to deposit of Rs. 2,000/- by the appellant with the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority (JHALSA) within two weeks from the date of this order, failing which, this appeal shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Bench.

In case, the appellant files the proof of deposit of Rs. 2,000/- with the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority (JHALSA) within two weeks from the date of this order, the Registry is directed to list this appeal after two weeks.

(ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Smita/-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI MA No. 241 of 2019

Union of India through General Manager, Eastern Railway, Kolkata ...... Appellant

Versus

Kunchan Dutta & Ors. ......... Respondents

Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

For the Appellant : Ms. Neetu Sinha, CGC For the Respondent s : Ms. Chaitali C. Sinha , Adv.

Ms. Ruchi Mukhi, Adv.

07 / 08.08.2023 Heard the parties.

Perusal of the record reveals that vide order dated 30.01.2023, the prayer for time was allowed to the appellant as the last chance.

Learned counsel for the appellant again prays for time.

Prayer for time is allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs. 1,000/- by the appellant to the respondents through the learned counsel for the respondents appearing in the record within three weeks from the date of this order, failing which this appeal will stand dismissed without further reference to the bench.

In case the appellant produces the proof of payment of cost of Rs. 1,000/- by the appellant to the respondents through the learned counsel for the respondents appearing in the record within three weeks, list this appeal after three weeks.

(ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Smita/-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI MA No. 223 of 2020

Deodeep Rajak & Anr. ...... Appellants

Versus

Ravindra Kumar Pandey & Anr. ......... Respondents

Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

For the Appellants : Mr. Vijay Kr. Sharma , Adv. For the Respondents : Mr. Alok Lal, Adv.

07 / 08.08.2023 Heard the parties.

Perusal of the record reveals that the notice issued to the respondent no. 1 has returned with the report that he is not residing at the given address.

Issue fresh notice to the respondent no. 1 at his present and correct address.

The appellants are directed to file requisites of notice through both processes i.e. under registered post with A/D as well as through ordinary process within four weeks, failing which, this appeal shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Bench.

Rule is made returnable within six weeks. List this appeal after receipt of the service report of the notice issued to said respondent.

(ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Smita/-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI MA No. 49 of 2020

Dulari Devi & Ors. ...... Appellants

Versus

Md. Munna Ansari & Ors. ......... Respondents

Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

For the Appellants : Mr. Vijay Kr. Roy , Adv. For the Respondents : Mr. S. J.Roy , Adv.

08 / 08.08.2023 Heard the parties.

Perusal of the record reveals that the notice issued to the respondent no. 2 returned with the report that he is not residing at the given address.

Issue fresh notice to the respondent no. 2 at his present and correct address.

The appellants are directed to file requisites of notice through both processes i.e. under registered post with A/D as well as through ordinary process within two weeks, failing which, this appeal shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Bench.

Rule is made returnable within six weeks. List this appeal after receipt of the service report of the notice issued to said respondents.

(ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Smita/-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI MA No. 36 of 2020

Sunita Devi & Ors. ...... Appellants

Versus

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Dhanbad & Ors.

......... Respondents

Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

For the Appellant : Mr. Birendra Kumar , Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. Ajay Kr. Patha , Adv.

... / 08.08.2023 Heard the parties.

Perusal of the record reveals that the notice issued to the respondent no. 2 returned with the report that the respondent is not known in the address mentioned in the notice.

Issue fresh notice to the respondent no. 2 at his present and correct address.

The appellants are directed to file requisites of notice through both processes i.e. under registered post with A/D as well as through ordinary process within three weeks, failing which, this appeal shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Bench.

Rule is made returnable within six weeks. List this appeal after receipt of the service report of the notice issued to said respondents.

(ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Smita/-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI MA No. 667 of 2017

The Branch Manager, IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co.Ltd., Dhanbad ...... Appellant

Versus

Shalini Agarwal & Ors. ......... Respondents

Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

For the Appellant : Mr. Ashutosh Anand , Adv. For the Respondent s : Mr. Shekhar Pd. Sinha , Adv.

11 / 08.08.2023 Heard the parties.

This appeal will be heard.

Admit.

Call for the Lower Court Records. Mr. Shekhar Pd. Sinha, receives the notice on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 6. Issue notice to the respondent no. 7. The appellant is directed to file requisites of notice through both processes i.e. under registered post with A/D as well as through ordinary process within four weeks, failing which, this appeal shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Bench.

Rule is made returnable within six weeks. List this appeal after receipt of the service report of the notice issued to said respondent.

(ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Smita/-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI MA No. 167 of 2021

Shalini Agarwal & Ors. ...... Appellants

Versus

Sandeep Mukherjee & Anr. ......... Respondent

Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

For the Appellants : Mr. Shekhar Pd. Sinha , Adv. For the Respondent s : Mr. Ashutosh Anand , Adv.

05 / 08.08.2023 Heard.

Issue fresh notice to the respondents in the matter of limitation.

The appellants are directed to file requisites of notice through both processes i.e. under registered post with A/D as well as through ordinary process within four weeks, failing which, this appeal shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Bench.

Rule is made returnable within six weeks. List this appeal after receipt of the service report of the notice issued to the said respondent.

(ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Smita/-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI MA No. 32 of 2020

Satish Chandra Saha ...... Appellant Versus Jay Singh Sardar & Ors. ......... Respondents

Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

For the Appellant : Mr. A.K.Sahani , Adv. For the Respondents : Mr. Jitesh Kumar , Adv.

07 / 08.08.2023 I.A. no. 1362 of 2020 Heard the parties.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this interlocutory application has been filed with a prayer to condone the delay of 101 days in filing this appeal. It is further submitted that the appellant is resident of remote village and had no knowledge about the disposal of the case and he was under the impression that the case is still pending and he waited for the judgment to come which resulted in delay. It is then submitted that the appellant has very good grounds to agitate in this appeal and the delay caused is neither deliberate nor intentional and unless the delay is condoned, the appellant will be highly prejudiced.

Learned counsels for the respondents have no objection.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

This interlocutory application is disposed of

accordingly.

(ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) MA No. 32 of 2020 This appeal will be heard.

Admit.

Call for the Lower Court Records. Learned counsel for the appellants prays for time.

Prayer for time is allowed as the last chance. List this appeal after receipt of the Lower Court Records.

(ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Smita/-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI SA No. 437 of 2018

Most. Kalindri Devi ...... Appellant

Versus

Smt. Leela Devi ......... Respondent

Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

For the Appellant : Mr. Ayush Aditya , Adv.

08 / 08.08.2023 I.A. no. 2608 of 2020 Heard the parties.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this interlocutory application has been filed with a prayer to condone the delay of 685 days in filing this appeal. It is further submitted that the appellant is a lady and she was under the impression that the judgment has been reserved, hence, she could not immediately know about the dismissal of the Title Appeal no. 56 of 2010, which resulted in delay. It is then submitted that the appellant has very good grounds to agitate in this appeal and the delay caused is neither deliberate nor intentional and unless the delay is condoned, the appellant will be highly prejudiced.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

This interlocutory application is disposed of

accordingly.

(ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) SA No. 437 of 2018 Learned counsel for the appellant prays for time.

Prayer for time is allowed as the last chance. List this appeal after eight weeks under the heading 'Order XLI Rule 11 of CPC'.

(ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Smita/-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI SA No. 480 of 2018

Md. Ibrahim ...... Appellant

Versus

Smt. Mustari Begum & Ors.

......... Respondents

Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

For the Appellant : Mr. K.K.Ambastha , Adv.

Mr. Niranjan Kumar , Adv.

For the Respondent s : Mr. J.N.Upadhyay , Adv.

11 / 08.08.2023 I.A. No. 4939 of 2023 Heard the parties.

Learned counsel for the legal representatives of the sole deceased appellant submits that this Interlocutory Application has been filed with a prayer to substitute the legal representatives of the deceased sole appellant- Md. Ibrahim. It is further submitted that the prayer has also been made in this interlocutory application to delete the name of the deceased respondent no. 1- Smt. Mustari Begum.

Learned counsel for the legal representatives of the sole deceased appellant submits that sole appellant- Md. Ibrahim died on 22.10.2020 leaving behind his only 04 legal representatives whose names, addresses and parentage has been mentioned in paragraph 3 of the interlocutory application.

Learned counsel for the legal representatives of the sole deceased appellant submits that respondent no. 1- Smt. Mustari Begum on 29.09.2022, against whom, vide order dated 08.05.2023, it has been mentioned that the appeal has already been abated. It is further submitted that the legal representatives of deceased respondent no. 1 are already on record as respondent nos. 4 to 7 and 9 and 10 of this appeal. It is next submitted that legal representatives of the sole deceased appellant were not aware about the pendency of the appeal and only after receiving a letter from the counsel, the legal representatives of the sole deceased appellant could know about the pendency of the appeal but by then, the delay had already occurred in filing the petition for substitution and unless the delay in filing the petition for substitution of the only 04 legal representatives of the sole deceased appellant is condoned, the abatement if any, is set aside and the prayer for substitution of the only 04 legal representatives of the sole deceased appellant whose names, addresses and parentage has been mentioned in paragraph 3 of the interlocutory application, is allowed, the legal representatives of the sole deceased appellant will be highly prejudiced.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the delay in filing the petition for substitution is condoned, the abatement, if any, is set aside and the prayer to substitute the only 04 legal representatives of the sole deceased appellant as appellant nos. 1(a) to 1(d) whose names, addresses and parentage has been mentioned in paragraph 3 of the interlocutory application, is allowed.

Registry is directed to incorporate the name of the only 04 legal representative of the sole deceased appellant as appellant nos. 1(a) to 1(d) in the cause title of the appeal memo with 'Red Ink'. Registry is also directed to mention the word 'Dead' against the name of the sole deceased appellant and the deceased respondent no. 1 in the cause title of the appeal memo.

This interlocutory application is disposed of accordingly.

(ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) SA No. 480 of 2018 Mr. Niranjan Kumar, Advocate filed vakalatnama on behalf of the appellant nos. 1(a) to 1(d).

Learned counsel for the appellants prays for time. Prayer for time is allowed as the last chance. List this appeal after eight weeks under the heading 'for hearing'.

(ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Smita/-