Manoj Kumar vs Gita Devi
2024 Latest Caselaw 9126 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Manoj Kumar vs Gita Devi on 10 September, 2024

Author: Rajesh Kumar

Bench: Rajesh Kumar

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                               M.A. No.80 of 2024
                                        ----

Manoj Kumar, aged about 50 years, Son of Late Awadhesh Prasad, Residents of Village-Chiragora Samsan Road, P.O. Dhanbad, P.S-Dhanbad, District-Dhanbad (Jharkhand) .... .... Appellant(s)

-Versus-

1. Gita Devi, wife of Late Awadhesh Prasad, Resident of Telipara, Near Bajrangbali Mandir, P.O., P.S. & District-Dhanbad

2. General Public of Mauza-Telipara, P.O., P.S. and District-Dhanbad

3. Kishor Prasad, S/o Late Awadesh Prasad, R/o Village-Chiragora Samson Road, P.O., P.S & District Dhanbad (Jharkhand) .... .... Respondent(s)

----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

----

For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Sachin Mahato, Adv.

       For the Respondent(s)          :
                                        ----
                    th
       04/Dated: 10 September, 2024

1. The present miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 01.02.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) 1st, Dhanbad in Succession Certificate Case No.51 of 2013.

2. It appears that succession order has been passed in favour of the respondent No.1 namely, Gita Devi. The factum of marriage of Gita Devi has been disputed.

3. An interlocutory application being I.A No.9330 of 2024 has been filed for condoning the delay of 2150 days in preferring the present miscellaneous appeal.

4. Two grounds have been taken by the appellant that he was engaged in treatment of his brother, who had died on 17.06.2017 and the Covid-19 pandemic situation.

That is not able to be explained for such a huge delay i.e. around 08 years in filing the present miscellaneous appeal.

5. In view of the matter, I do not find any reason to interference with the same. Accordingly, the present interlocutory application stands rejected.

6. Consequently, the present miscellaneous appeal also stands rejected.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

Raja/-Uploaded