Rajendra Prasad vs State Of Jharkhand Through Deputy ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 1579 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Rajendra Prasad vs State Of Jharkhand Through Deputy ... on 16 February, 2024

Author: S.N. Pathak

Bench: S.N.Pathak

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                               C.R. No. 70 of 2018

         Rajendra Prasad                                     ...         Petitioner
                                          Vs.
         1.State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, District-
         Hazaribagh
         2.Additional Collector, Hazaribagh, District-Hazaribagh
         3.Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hazaribagh, District-Hazaribagh
         4.Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Hazaribagh, District-Hazaribagh
         5.Anchal Adhikari, Bishnugarh, District-Hazaribagh
         6.Inter College, Bishnugarh, District-Hazaribagh
         7.Secretary, Inter College, Bishnugarh, District-Hazaribagh
         8.Chairman Jharkhand Academic Council, Gyandeep Campus, Baragawan,
         Namkum, District-Ranchi
                                                              ...       Opp. Parties
                                          ----------

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK

For the Petitioner : Mr. Amar Kr. Sinha, Advocate For the O.Ps-State : Mr. Mithilesh Singh, GA-IV

-----------

05/ 16.02.2024 This Civil Revision has been preferred against the judgment dated 06.09.2018 passed by Sri Satyendra Kumar Singh, the learned Principal District Judge, Hazaribagh in Civil Misc. Appeal No.05 of 2017 dismissing the appeal against the order dated 03.03.2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division-I, Hazaribagh in Misc. Case No.03 of 2003 against the application filed by the plaintiff for restoration of Title Suit No.08 of 1996.

2. Plaintiff had preferred a Title Suit No.08 of 1996 for declaration of right, title, interest and possession over the suit land of Khata No.50, plot no.130, area 6.30 acres, village-Chelanga, Thana No.203, P.S. Bishnugarh, District-Hazaribagh.

3. When the matter was taken up by the first court, it was observed that on 29 consecutive dates the plaintiff did not appear, neither steps were taken for leading the evidences on frivolous grounds, cases were adjourned. Which is apparent from the order dated 03.03.2017. Since the plaintiff was not showing interest in pursuing the case, the same was dismissed on 27.11.2002. Plaintiff herein petitioner preferred miscellaneous case for restoring the original file, which was dismissed. Thereafter he preferred appeal, the appellate Court after examining the records was of the view that plaintiff did not file any documents in support of his pleadings. After the written statement, 29 opportunities were given to the plaintiff for adducing the evidence but the same was not done. Comfortably it can be inferred that plaintiff was not interested in adjudication of

the case, rather his interest was to prolong the matter.

4. In view of the concurrent findings of the Court and in view of the fact that petitioner was not interested in pursuing the matter, the Civil Revision requires no interference.

5. Accordingly the Civil Revision is hereby dismissed.

(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) Rohit/-