Jharkhand High Court
Umaayush Multicom Private Limited vs The State Of Jharkhand on 22 August, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
2025:JHHC:24993
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
C M. P. No. 752 of 2025
-----
Umaayush Multicom Private Limited, through its Director, Lalan Singh,
S/o Late Chandradeo Singh, Registered Office at C/o Smt. Pushpa
Kumari, W/o Shri Shailesh Kr. Singh, Indrapuri, Raja Bazar, New
Capital, Patna, PO- Veterinary College and PS- Shastri Nagar, District-
Patna, Bihar PIN-800014. ... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Divisional Forest Officer, having its office at Van Bhawan,
Purulia Road, PO and PS -Chas, District- Bokaro, Jharkhand -
827013.
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro
4. Mahendra Kumar Mishra, S/o Shri Bishwanath Mishra, R/o Plot
No.210, Sonatand, PO- Siwandih, PS- Marafari, District- Bokaro,
Jharkhand- 827010.
5. Izhar Hussain, S/o Late Sheikh Bada Babu Ansari, R/o Village-
Ukrid, PO and PS- Sector 12, District- Bokaro, Jharkhand- 827012.
6. Director In Charge, Bokaro Steel Plant, having office at
Administrative Building, Ispat Bhawan, PO and PS- Bokaro Steel
City, District- Bokaro, Jharkhand- 827001.
... .... Opp. Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rupesh Singh, Advocate
M/s Siddhartha Singh, Raunak Sahay,
Srikant Swaroop, V. Kumari, Advocates
For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar, G.A.-III
For the O.P. No.6 : M/s Indrajit Sinha & Bibhash Sinha, Advss.
-----
Oral Order
05 / Dated : 22.08.2025.
Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
1. The instant civil misc. petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 21.04.2025
passed in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 08 of 2025, by which delay of 1086
days in preferring miscellaneous appeal, in filing the first appeal
under Section 87(2) of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 has
been condoned.
2. Petitioner-company claims to have purchased the land measuring
an area of 55.96 acres by registered sale deeds from one Ijhar
2025:JHHC:24993
Hussain. The said land was settled in favour of Ijhar Hussain by Suit
No. 4330 of 2013. The order of settlement has been challenged in
Civil Misc. Appeal No. 08 of 2025, which has been admitted by
condoning the delay against which the present civil miscellaneous
petition has been filed.
3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the delay of
1086 days has been condoned in filing the first appeal. The said
condonation has been made without even issuing notice to the
respondents which is a mandatory requirement under Order XLI
Rule 3A of CPC.
4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that mandate of law
under Order XLI Rule 3A CPC is plain and specific that when a
petition filed for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act is considered, notice shall be sent to the
Respondents. In the judgment reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Pat.
4323, the High Court of Patna had occasion to consider the
provision as contained under Order XLI Rule 3A CPC. It has been
held in this case that the requirement to serve notice was mandatory
in nature and the Appellate Court cannot condone the delay without
issuing notice for hearing to the respondents on the issue of
condonation of delay.
5. It is submitted that the limitation can apply equally to State as well
as to the private party(s) and the plea that the delay occasioned in
filing appeal for the laches on the part of the departmental officers
cannot be a ground for condoning the delay as held by the Apex
Court in (2012)3 SCC 563.
6. Learned counsel for the State does not dispute that notices were not
issued to the respondents while hearing the petition for condonation
of delay filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
7. It is however, submitted that the mandate of law as enshrined under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been extensively dealt with in the
judgment reported in 2021 (7) SCC 313, wherein it has been held
that for condonation of delay, if there are sufficient grounds for
setting aside the said delay, even then petition under Section 5 of
the Limitation Act is not required and the same can be condoned on
mere oral submission.
2025:JHHC:24993
8. It is further argued that issuance of notice is not a mandatory
requirement as per the ratio laid down in Bhagwan S/O Ganpatrao
Godsay vs. Kachrulal S/O Bastimal Samdariya [in the equivalent
Citations : 1987 (2) BOMCR 153].
9. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both the
sides and perusing the materials on record including the impugned
order, it appears that the learned First Appellate Court has noted
that the order passed in Case No.4330 of 2013 which was under-
challenge, was obtained without impleading the Divisional Forest
Officer as a party. Therefore, the Divisional Forest Officer [DFO]
could not know about passing of the said order. Only when the fraud
came to the light then the appeal was filed. There appears to be
some merit in the ground for condonation of delay, law is settled that
fraud unravels the entire proceeding.
10. Be that as it may, since the notices were not served upon the
petitioner in terms of Order XLI Rule 3A CPC before hearing the
condonation petition, the impugned order is set aside and the matter
is remanded back to the learned First Appellate Court to hear both
the sides on the issue of limitation and pass order afresh.
11.Both the parties will appear before the learned Principal District
Judge, Bokaro for hearing in the matter on 08.09.2025 and in the
event of non-appearance of any of the sides, learned First Appellate
Court will proceed as per the law.
The instant CMP stands disposed of. Pending I.A., if any, also
stands disposed of.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
AKT/Satyendra/Sandeep
