Saroj Kumar Singh & Ors vs Deputy Commissioner
2023 Latest Caselaw 2345 Jhar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                 S.A. No. 33 of 2022
                             ------

Saroj Kumar Singh & Ors.

.... .... .... Appellants Versus Deputy Commissioner, Koderma & Anr.

.... .... .... Respondents

------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

------

For the Appellants : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate

------

Order No.06 Dated- 18.07.2023 I.A. No.3533 of 2023 Learned counsel for the appellants submits that this interlocutory application has been filed with a prayer to send the second appeal to the court below for correction.

It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the prayer has erroneously been mentioned but in fact, this interlocutory application has been filed with a prayer to ignore the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter at serial nos. 1 and 2. It is further submitted that the defect pointed out by the stamp reporter at serial no.1 is that the suit and appeal value is missing in the certified copy of the decree under appeal. Drawing attention of this Court to the certified copy of the appeal memo of Civil (Title) Appeal No. 24 of 2018, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the value of the civil appeal was Rs.98,100/- but this second appeal has been valued at Rs.1,00,000/-. Hence, the defect pointed out by the stamp reporter at serial no.1 be ignored.

Considering the aforesaid facts, the defect pointed out by the stamp reporter at serial no.1 is ignored and the value of this. Second Appeal be treated as rupees one lakh.

It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the defect pointed out by the stamp reporter at serial no.2 is that parentage of appellant nos.1 and 2 and the name of the appellant no.3 differs in the certified copy of the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court. Drawing attention of this Court to the certified copy of the appeal memo of Civil (Title) Appeal No. 24 of 2018, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that it is apparent in the decree in appeal that the name of the father of the appellant nos.1 and 2 have wrongly been mentioned as Rajendeo Singh instead of the correct name of Rajdeo Singh which has correctly been mentioned in the certified copy of the judgment of both the Civil (Appeal) No. 24 of 2018 and Title Suit No. 49 of 2010 as well as the plaint of Title Suit No. 49 of 2010 and in the appeal memo of appeal of Civil (Title) Appeal No. 24 of 2018. Hence, it is submitted that the name of father of the appellant nos.1 and 2 be treated as Rajdeo Singh.

Considering the aforesaid facts, the name of the father of the appellant nos.1 and 2 is treated as Rajdeo Singh.

So far as the name of the appellant no.3 who is the father of the appellant nos.1 and 2 is concerned, in the certified copy of the Civil (Title) Appeal No. 24 of 2018, it has wrongly been mentioned as Rajandeo Singh whereas at all the other places it has been mentioned as Rajdeo Singh. Hence, the name of the appellant no.3 be treated as Rajdeo Singh.

Considering the aforesaid facts, it is ordered that the name of the appellant no.3 be treated as Rajdeo Singh and the defect pointed out by the stamp reporter at serial no.2 is also ignored.

This interlocutory application is disposed of accordingly.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) S.A. No. 33 of 2022

Heard the parties.

The learned counsel for the appellants prays for four weeks' time to submit the court fee.

Registry is directed to calculate the court fee and mention the same.

List this appeal after four weeks as the last chance.

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