Jharkhand High Court
Rajasthan Bhawan Trust Through ... vs Lal Rudra Pratap Nath Sahadeo & ... on 11 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction)
L.P.A. No. 511 of 1999 (R)
Rajasthan Bhawan Trust through its present Secretary Mali Ram Kanodia Son of
Late Baidyanathjee Kanodia resident of Chandwa, P.S. Chandwa, District
Palamau. ... ... Appellant
Versus
Lal Rudra Pratap Nath Sahadeo & Others ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Appellant : Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate
For the Resp. No. 2 : Mr. Rishi Pallav, Advocate
---
th
Order No. 16/Dated: 11 October 2023
This Letters Patent Appeal seeks to challenge the judgment in appeal
from Original Decree No. 112 of 1985 (R).
2. The chequered history of litigation of this case spans over a period of
quarter a century.
3. L.P.A. No. 511 of 1999 (R) was instituted on 25th November 1999 and
by an order dated 13th September 2002 the Letters Patent Appeal was allowed
and consequently the suit was dismissed as not maintainable.
4. The order dated 13th September 2002 was found not sustainable by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and Civil Appeal No. 6775 of 2003 was allowed by
remanding the present Letters Patent Appeal for a fresh decision.
5. Thereafter, a fresh notice was issued to the parties and numerous
applications were filed. The respondent No. 2 who had passed away was
substituted through his surviving legal heirs and successors who are now
represented through Mr. Rishi Pallav, the learned counsel. It appears that the
respondent No. 1 had also passed away and was substituted through her
surviving legal heirs and successors. However, no one appears on behalf of the
substituted legal heirs of the respondent No. 1. It further appears that the
respondent No. 3 has also been substituted through his legal heirs and successors
but they are also not appearing in the present proceeding presumably for the
reason that notices issued from this Court have not been served upon them.
6. In the first place, we are inclined to observe that after the parties
appeared, a judgment was rendered and on setting-aside of the judgment the
matter has been listed before the Court, there is no requirement in law to issue
notice to the respondents who were already served at the time of the final
hearing of the matter. In fact, in the order dated 6 th February 2013 passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is specifically mentioned that the parties shall appear
in the present proceeding on 5th April 2013.
7. However, having regard to the previous orders passed in the present
Letters Patent Appeal, we accept the request of the learned counsel for the
appellant for taking substituted mode of service through publication and,
accordingly, Mr. Vikash Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellant shall take
necessary steps for publication of notices in two daily newspapers one in Hindi
and another in English having wide circulation across State of Jharkhand.
8. Let this exercise be done within next six weeks.
9. Before the next date of hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant
shall file an affidavit regarding steps taken by the appellant in compliance of this
order. The learned counsel for the appellant undertakes to file a fresh memo of
parties in the present Letters Patent Appeal.
10. In the meantime, let the Lower Court Records in connection with
judgement and decree dated 29th June 1985 (decree signed on 8th July 1985)
passed by the learned Additional Sub-ordinate Judge, Daltonganj in Title Suit
No. 36 of 1974 be called for from the Court concerned.
11. The learned counsel for the appellant states that now the records must
have been transferred to the District Court at Latehar.
12. Post this matter on 29th November 2023.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Binit/Mukul
