Saturday, 16, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Jag Mohan Das vs Budhram Ho @ Toto @ Jag Mohan Hesa & Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 9002 Jhar

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 9002 Jhar
Judgement Date : 5 September, 2024

Jharkhand High Court

Jag Mohan Das vs Budhram Ho @ Toto @ Jag Mohan Hesa & Others on 5 September, 2024

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                  S.A. No.56 of 2023
                             ------
    Jag Mohan Das                   .... .... .... Appellant
                             Versus
    Budhram Ho @ Toto @ Jag Mohan Hesa & Others
                                    .... .... .... Respondents
                             ------
CORAM        : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
                                        ------
       For the Appellant          : Mr. Abhishek Kr. Dubey, Advocate
       For the Respondents        : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Tiwari, SC I
                                    Mr. Sachin Kumar, AC to SC I
                                        ------
       Order No:-04 Dated:-05-09-2024
             Heard the parties.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the defect No.1 pointed out by the stamp reporter is to the effect that the parentage of the respondent No.4 (d) to 4 (h) is missing in the certified copy of the judgment of lower appellate court and the certified copy of the decree under appeal. It is next submitted that the respondent Nos. 4 (d) to 4 (h) of the decree under appeal are respondent Nos.8 to 12 of this Second Appeal and they are all daughter of Late Kaluram Barik but inadvertently their parentage has not been mentioned in the cause-title of decree under appeal but perusal of the impugned order reveals that they are the daughters of Late Kaluram Barik. Hence, it is submitted that the defect No.1 pointed out by the stamp reporter be ignored.

Considering the aforesaid facts, the defect No.1 pointed out by the stamp reporter is ignored.

Learned counsel for the appellant prays for time to remove the remaining defects pointed out by the stamp reporter.

The appellant is directed to remove the remaining defects pointed out by the stamp reporter within four weeks from the date of this order, failing which, this appeal shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Bench.

List this appeal after removal of the defects.

Animesh/                                   (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter