[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Satyabhama Bhakat vs Jay Prakash Bhakat on 19 December, 2025
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
2025:JHHC:38377
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
C.M.P. No. 986 of 2024
With
I.A. No.11180 of 2024
1. Satyabhama Bhakat, aged about 76 years, W/o: Late Giridhari
Bhakat.
2. Kamla Bhakat, aged about 56 years, W/o: Srimauli Bhakat
3. Vishnu Priya Bhakat, aged about 56 years, W/o: Bhabani Bhakat
4. Hirapati Bhakat, aged about 55 years, W/o: Nirodh Baran Bhakat
5. Shakuntala Bhakat, aged about 42 years, W/o: Sunil Bhakat
6. Habulal Bhakat, aged about 51 years.
7. Tarinisen Bhakat, aged about 62 years, both S/o: Late Giridhari
Bhakat
All residents of Village Gopalpur, P.O. Asanbani, P.S. Jadugora,
District:East Singhbhum
... ... Petitioners/Appellants
Versus
1. Jay Prakash Bhakat
2. Om Prakash Bhakat
Both sons of late Paresh Bhakat
3. Pramila Bhakat, W/o: Late Pradyumna Bhakat
4. Dhanpati Bhakat, S/o: Late Pradyumna Bhakat
5. Deepak Kumar Bhakat, S/o: Late Pradyumna Bhakat
6. Sukhdeo Bhakat, S/o Late Pradyumna Bhakat
7. Bharti Bhakat, D/o: Late Pradyumna Bhakat
All resident of village Gopalpur, P.O. Asanbani, P.S. Jadugora,
District East Singhbhum
8. Amulya Ratan Bhakat, S/o: Late Shyam Charan Bhakat
9. Chandra Shekhar Bhakat
10.Kripa Sindhu Bhakat
11.Jagannath Bhakat all sons of Late Thaynath Bhakat
12.Aurobinda Bhakat
13.Anil Kumar Bhakat
14.Suresh Kumar Bhakat, all sons of late Haripada Bhakat
15.Santosh Bhakat, S/o Bhism Bhakat
16.Chitta Ranjan Bhakat
17.Manoranjan Bhakat both sons of Late Basant Bhakat
18.Gouri Shankar Bhakat, S/o Pramotho Nath Bhakat
19.Ram Chandra Bhakat, S/o Mritunjay Bhakat.
All residents of village Gopalpur, P.O. Asanbani, P.S. Jadugora,
District: East Singhbhum
... ... Respondents/Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioners : Mr. Anil Kumar Ganjhu, Advocate
For the Opp. Parties :
---
2025:JHHC:38377
03/19.12.2025
1. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed on 03.09.2024
for restoration of S.A. No. 123 of 2019 which was dismissed on non-
removal of defects in terms of order dated 11.02.2021.
2. The order dated 11.02.2021 passed in S.A. No. 123 of 2019
reveal that numerous defects were pointed out and even there was
deficit court fees of Rs. 3700/-. The memo of appeal also reveals that
the plaintiff had lost in both the courts and was appellant in the second
appeal.
3. However, in this C.M.P. one interlocutory application being
I.A. No. 11180 of 2024 has been filed seeking condonation of delay of
1005 days in filing this C.M.P. in which the reason for condonation of
delay has been mentioned in paragraph 5 to 9 which are quoted as
under: -
"5. That the delay of 1005 Days in filing civil miscellaneous
petition is neither deliberate nor intentional and delay was
caused due to financial stress and strain.
6. That the conducting lawyer has not informed to the
petitioners that their case was dismissed for default due to that
reason petitioners couldn't approached before this Hon'ble
Court within the stipulated time.
7. That the case was dismissed during the covid period and as
such petitioners have been not informed by their advocate
about the case as such he could not approach the lawyer in
proper time for filing the instant civil miscellaneous petition.
8. That the petitioners has a good case on merit and as such
the delay occurred due to the aforesaid reason.
9.That after receiving the certified copy of the Judgment, the
petitioners prepared himself for filing the instant civil
miscellaneous petition after taking advice from his counsel,
which cause delay in filing the above civil miscellaneous
petition."
4. It is also important to note that Covid period has also been
mentioned in the reason for delay and no foundational dates have been
mentioned in the entire explanation. However, it is well known that
the relaxation during the Covid period was from 15.03.2020 to
28.02.2022 and at best plus 90 days, thereafter, which expired on
30.05.2022. The petition has been filed on 03.09.2024 without any
explanation for delay.
2025:JHHC:38377
5. This Court finds that the reasons for enormous delay are not at
all satisfactory and this Court is not inclined to condone the delay.
6. In such circumstances, being not at all satisfied with the cause
shown in seeking condonation of delay in filing this petition.
Accordingly, the interlocutory application being I.A. No. 11180 of
2024 seeking condonation of delay is hereby dismissed.
7. Consequently, the C.M.P. is also dismissed.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
19.12.2025
Rakesh/-
Uploaded on:-23.12.2025
