Jharkhand High Court
Patal Chandra Mahato Son Of Late Jyoti ... vs Makhani Mahtain on 25 October, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Second Appeal No. 144 of 2024
Patal Chandra Mahato Son of Late Jyoti Lal Mahato, age- 75 years by
faith Hindu, by occupation service, resident of village-Telidih PO
Narayanpur, PS-Chas, District - Bokaro. ... ... ... Appellant
Versus
1. Makhani Mahtain, aged about about 65 years, w/o Late Bhaglu
Mahto, Vill- Telidih, P.O.- Narayanpur P.S.-Chas, Dist- Bokaro,
PIN-827019
2. Moti Lal Mahato son of Late Mansa Ram Mahato. All resident of
village- Telidih, P.O.Narayanpur, P.S. Chas, Dist. Bokaro.
3. Shri Krishna Singh Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Village-Telidih.
District: Bokaro. P.O. Narayanpur P.S.-Chás, District: Bokaro.
4. Kalipad Mahato son of Late Thalai Mahato, resident of Village-
Telidih, P.O. Narayanpur, District- Bokaro. P.S.-Chas.
5. Dinesh Mandal son of Late Chaturi Mandal, resident of Village-
Telidih, P.O.- Narayanpur District- Bokaro. P.S.-Chas.
6. Kailu Gope, son of Aghnu Gope, resident of Village- Telidih, P.O.-
Narayanpur, PS-Chas, Dist-Bokaro.
7. Lakhi Ram Mahato, son of Bharat Mahato, resident of Village-
Telidih, P.O.-Narayanpur, P.S- Chas. District-Bokaro.
8. Yudhisthir Mahato, son of Shri Pushu Mahato resident of
Bhawanipur Site, P.O.- Jodhadihmore (Chas), PS-Chas, Dist-
Bokaro.
9. Mahendra Prasad son of Shanti Ram Barari resident of IX-D, Q.N.-
2-222, Sector-1, B.S.City, Dist- Bokaro, P.S.-Chas
10. Raghu Nath Prasad son of not known, resident of New Lakshmi
Center, Ram Mandir, Sector-1, B.S.City, Dist-Bokaro. P.S.-Chas
11. Yogeshwar Prasad, son of known, resident of IX-D, Qr. No.2-395,
B.S.City. Bokaro. P.S.- Chas
12. Narayan Chandra Mahato son of Late Kala Chandra Mahato,
resident of Village Telidih, PO- Narayanpur, P.S.-Chas, Dist-
Bokaro
13. Tej Pal Mahato, son of Late Jyoti Lal Mahato, Village Telidih, P.O.-
Narayanpur, P.S. Chas, District Bokaro.
14. Jagdish Chandra Mahto, s/o Late Jyoti Lal Mahto, Vill Telidih, P.O.-
Narayanpur, P.S.- Chas, Dist-Bokaro
15. Bijay Bhusan Singh, age 52 years, s/o Late Bahshwar Prasad
Singh, R/o Nav Chetan Society, P.O. + P.S.- Chas, Dist- Bokaro,
Jharkhand.
1 of 3
Second Appeal No. 144 of 2024
16. Bharat Bhushan Singh, age 50 years, s/o Late Bahshwar Prasad
Singh, R/o Nav Chetan Society, P.O. + P.S.- Chas, Dist- Bokaro,
Jharkhand.
17. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, age 48 years, s/o Late Bahshwar Prasad
Singh, R/o Nav Chetan Society, P.O. + P.S.- Chas, Dist- Bokaro,
Jharkhand.
18. Nita Singh D/o Late Baleshwar Prasad Singh, R/o Nav Chetan
Cooperative, Chas, P.O. & P.S.- Chas, Dist- Bokaro, Jharkhand.
... ... ... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
---------
For the Appellant: Mr. Praveen Chandra, Advocate
---------
02/Dated: 25.10.2024
1) This Interlocutory Application has been filed under section 5 of
the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 779 days in filing this
appeal challenging the judgment dated 15.07.2021 in Civil Appeal
No.10 of 2016 of the District Judge-IV, Bokaro confirming the
judgment dated 30.1.2016 in Title Suit No. 14 of 1997 of the Munsif
Civil Judge, Sr. Div., 1st, Bokaro.
2) In the application filed for seeking condonation of delay, it is
contended that the applicant had moved a revocation application
being Revocation Case No. 08 of 2021 before the District Judge-IV,
Bokaro which was pending till 22.03.2024 and which was then
dismissed as not maintainable, and thereafter this Second Appeal has
been preferred under section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on
24.07.2024 and this Court ought to condone the delay by invoking the
section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
3) Counsel for the applicant is not able to show under what
provision of law, the application for revocation of the judgment of the
1st appellate court in Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2016 was made to the said
court, in the absence of any such provision contained in the Civil
2 of 3
Procedure Code, 1908. Also the order dated 22.3.2024 itself indicates
that none appeared for the applicant in the revocation application
before the court on more than one occasion and vexed with this
conduct, the learned judge dismissed the revocation application
stating that it was not only not maintainable but it had been filed in a
very casual and routine manner.
4) In view of this facts and circumstances, this is not a fit case to
condone the period of limitation of 779 days in filing the appeal by
giving to the applicant the benefit of section 14 of the Limitation Act,
1963.
5) Accordingly, this interlocutory application is dismissed,
consequently the appeal is dismissed.
(M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
Sharda/MM
3 of 3
