[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Lal Rabindra Nath Sahdeo @ Lal Rebindra ... vs Ranthu Kumhar (Mahto) on 18 December, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
2025:JHHC:38221
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
C. M. P. No.483 of 2025
Lal Rabindra Nath Sahdeo @ Lal Rebindra Nath Sahdeo @ Lal Rabindra
Nath, S/o Late Gajendra Nath Sahdeo, R/o Village & PO- Tupudana, PS-
Hatia, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. .... .. ... Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. Ranthu Kumhar (Mahto), S/o Late Jerka Kumhar
2. Jit Bahan Kumhar (Mahto), S/o Late Hari Charan Kumhar
3. Sarju Kumhar (Mahto), S/o Late Jagdeo Kumhar
4. Sushila Devi, W/o Late Hari Charan Kumhar
.. ... ...Opp. Party(s)
...........
CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.........
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kanishka Deo, Advocate
For the O.P(s). :
......
10/ 18.12.2025. Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner.
1. The instant CMP has been filed for setting aside the order dated 23.09.2024
(Annexure-3) passed by learned Addl. Judicial Commissioner-XI, Ranchi,
in Civil Appeal No.99 of 2019, whereby and whereunder the application
for condonation of delay of 3658 days has been allowed ex-parte and
further admitted the Civil Appeal No.99 of 2019 filed by the Opp. Party(s).
2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in Title Suit No.25 of 2004 which was filed for
declaration that Sale-deed dated 24.03.1983 was genuine and perfect
document and for further confirmation of the possession over the suit
property, as detailed in the schedule of the plaint. The suit of the petitioner
was decreed in his favour vide judgment dated 18.07.2009.
3. The appeal was preferred being Civil Appeal No.99 of 2019 after a delay
of 3658 days in preferring the said Appeal.
4. The learned Trial Court while passing the impugned order has condoned
the said delay, against which, the instant CMP has been filed.
5. The main ground of challenge to the impugned order is that no sufficient
cause has been assigned by the learned First Appellate Court while
condoning the delay of more than ten years and the said order was passed
ex-parte against the petitioner.
6. Reliance is placed on the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal
No.7696 of 2021 [Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasiaro vs. Reddy Sridevi &
Ors.] wherein the matter involved was the condonation of delay of 1011
days by the High Court. The Apex Court while setting aside the order
observed that in the absence of reasonable, satisfactory or even appropriate
2025:JHHC:38221
explanation for seeking condonation of delay, the same is not to be
condoned lightly. The law of limitation may harshly affect the particular
party, but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so
prescribes and the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation
on equitable grounds.
7. Notice was earlier issued in this case upon the Opp. Party(s), but nobody
appeared and consequently, vide order dated 11.12.2025, a specific
direction was given that if nobody appears, the matter will be heard ex-
parte against the Opp. Party(s). Consequently, the instant CMP is being
heard ex-parte.
8. In the present case, there is a delay of more than 10 years in preferring the
appeal, which has been allowed without any sufficient cause, being
explained in the impugned order in almost a mechanical manner. In recent
judgment Hon'ble Apex Court has expressed anguish over the manner in
which the delay of 11 years was condoned.
9. It was thus observed in Shivamma v. Karnataka Housing Board,
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969:-
255. It hardly matters whether a litigant is a private party or a State when
it comes to condoning the gross delay of more than 11-years. If the litigant
chooses to approach the court long after the lapse of the time prescribed
under the relevant provisions of the law, then he cannot turn around and
say that no prejudice would be caused to either side by the delay being
condoned. This litigation between the parties started in 1989. We are in
2025. Almost 36 years have elapsed. However, till date the respondent has
not been able to reap the fruits of his decree. The High Court has made a
mockery of justice by condoning this delay of 3966 days and once again
ask the appellant to undergo the rigmarole of the legal proceedings.
10.The delay of more than 10 years has been condoned in the present case
without any sufficient cause. The impugned order is not sustainable and is
accordingly set aside.
Miscellaneous is allowed. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Sandeep/-
Uploaded
19.12.2025.
