Bimla Devi & Others vs Ravindar Singh & Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 7574 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Bimla Devi & Others vs Ravindar Singh & Others on 1 August, 2024

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                    S.A. No.100 of 2015
                            ------

Bimla Devi & Others .... .... .... Appellants Versus Ravindar Singh & Others .... .... .... Respondents

------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

------

For the Appellants : Mr. Arvind Kr. Choudhary, Advocate

------

Order No:-06 Dated:-01-08-2024 I.A. No.6476 of 2016 Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that this interlocutory application has been filed with a prayer to condone the delay of 02 days in filing the instant appeal. It is next submitted that the advocate's clerk was handed over the brief for filing the appeal but because of his negligence, he misplaced the certified copy of the impugned judgment and decree by tagging the same with another file, hence, the appeal could not be filed within the stipulated time and by the time the fault of the advocate's clerk was found out and the certified copy of the decree could be traced out, the delay of 02 days had already occurred. It is next submitted that the delay caused in filing the instant appeal is neither deliberate nor intentional. It is next submitted that the appellants have very good grounds to agitate in this appeal and unless the delay in filing the instant appeal is condoned, the appellants will be highly prejudiced. Hence, it is submitted that the delay of 02 days in filing the instant appeal, be condoned.

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the delay of 02 days in filing the instant appeal is condoned.

Accordingly, this interlocutory application stands disposed of.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

Notice issued to the respondent No.2 in the matter of limitation has returned with the report that the said respondent has died since long but no prayer for substitution of the said respondent has been made as yet.

Under such circumstances, this appeal abates against the respondent No.2.

Notice issued to the respondent No.1 (a) to 1 (e) through registered post with A/D has returned with the report that the said respondent Nos.1 (a) to 1

(e) have refused to receive the notice. Hence, the service of notice upon the respondent No.1 (a) to 1 (e) is sufficient.

Learned counsel for the appellants prays for time to advance arguments in the matter of Admission.

Prayer for time is allowed as the last chance. List this appeal after four weeks under the heading 'Hearing' under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Animesh/                                     (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)