Rameshwar Bedia vs The Deputy Commissioner
2024 Latest Caselaw 9266 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Rameshwar Bedia vs The Deputy Commissioner on 13 September, 2024

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                               CMP No. 776 of 2024
               1.

Rameshwar Bedia, aged about 55 years,

2. Nageshwar Bedia, aged about 50 years, Both Grandsons of Late Deva Bedia, sons of Late Munshi Bedia

3. Ramdayal Bedia, aged about 40 years, son of Tulsia Bedia

4. Chamru Bedia (now deceased), son of Sai Nath Bedia

5. Dablu Bedia, aged about 43 years, son of Late Biglaha Bedia

6. Sikandar Bedia, aged about 37 years, son of Late Biglaha Bedia All residents of village- Kadru , P.S.- Patratu, P.O.- Barkakana, Naya Nagar, Dist.- Ramgarh ... Petitioners Versus

1. The Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribag (now Ramgarh), AT, P.O., P.S., Dist.- Ramgarh

2. The Deputy Chief Engineers (Cost. ) East Central Railway, P.O.- Barkakhana, P.S.- Patratu, Dist.- Ramgarh ... Opp. Parties

Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

For the Petitioners : Mr. Mitul Kumar, Adv. For the opp. parties : Mr. V.K.Rai, AC to GA IV Ms. Chandana Kumari, AC to ASGI

04 / 13.09.2024 I.A. No. 9598 of 2024 Heard the parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this interlocutory application has been filed with a prayer to condone the delay of 730 days in filing this civil miscellaneous petition. It is further submitted that the petitioners came to know about the dismissal of their FA no. 164 of 2018 on 04.07.2022. It is next submitted that the appellants had no knowledge that the appeal was dismissed and the petitioners got to know about the same only on 28.06.2024 when the slip regarding the dismissal of the case, was supplied to the counsel for the petitioners and because of the same, the delay occurred in filing the civil miscellaneous petition. It is then submitted that the petitioners have very good grounds to agitate in this civil miscellaneous petition and the delay caused is neither deliberate nor intentional. It is further submitted that unless the delay is condoned, the petitioners will be highly prejudiced; therefore the delay as prayed for be condoned.

Learned counsel for the opp. parties, on the other hand, vehemently opposes the prayer for condonation of delay but fairly submits that because of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a delay in intimating the dismissal of the appeal to the counsel for the petitioners by the registry of the court.

Considering the aforesaid facts, the delay in filing the civil miscellaneous petition is condoned.

This interlocutory application is disposed of

accordingly.

(ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)

Perusal of the record reveals that First Appeal has been dismissed as the petitioners did not file the certified copy of the judgment impugned in the F.A. No. 164 of 2018.

Learned counsel for the petitioners prays for six weeks' time to file certified copy of the impugned judgment in FA No. 164 of 2018 i.e. the judgment and award dated 12.12.2017 passed by learned Civil Judge, Sr. Div. II, -cum- Special Judge, L.R. Cases, Ramgarh in L.R. Case no. 73 of 2012 with analogous cases.

List this civil miscellaneous petition after filing of the said certified copy by way of supplementary affidavit and if the supplementary affidavit is not filed within six weeks, this civil miscellaneous petition shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Bench.

(ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Smita/-