Most. Budo Devi W/O Late Sahdeo Oraon vs Md. Ismail
2025 Latest Caselaw 3786 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Most. Budo Devi W/O Late Sahdeo Oraon vs Md. Ismail on 10 June, 2025

Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

                                                       ( 2025:JHHC:14886 )




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                    C.M.P. No. 10 of 2025

1.Most. Budo Devi W/o Late Sahdeo Oraon, aged

about 72 Years

2. Sushil Oraon @ Sunil Oraon, aged about 25 Years

3.Bijay Oraon @ Bijay Kumar, aged about 42 Years

4. Brinda Oraon @ Virendra Oraon S/o Late Sahdeo Oraon, aged about 41 Years

S.No.2 to 4 are sons of Late Sahdeo Oraon

S.No.1 to 4 are residents of Village & P.O.-Raham, P.S.-

Tandwa, District-Chatra

5 Kesho Devi W/o Bodhin Minz @ Bodhan Minz D/o Sahdeo Oraon, aged about 37
Years, residents of Village-Kuduwa, P.O. & P.S.-Barhi, District-Hazaribagh

6. Karmi Oraon @ Karma Oraon S/o Barhan Oraon, aged about 58 Years,
residents of Village & P.O.-Raham, P.S.-Tandwa, District-Chatra

                                                   .....Petitioners

                -Versus-

1. Md. Ismail

2. Md. Maula Ali

3. Md. Makdum

S.No. 1 to 3 are sons of Late Ramjan Miyan
S.No.1 to 3 are residents of Village & P.O.-Raham, P.S.-

Tandwa, District-Chatra

4. Muslim Mian S/o Late Nasir Miyan

5.Most. Quraisa Khatoon W/o Late Sahadat Hussain

6. Reyaz Ansari

7. Nayeem Ansari

S.No.6 & 7 are sons of Late Sahadat Hussain

8. Wali Mohammad Miyan S/o Late Wahid Ali Miyan

9.Mumtaz Ahmad

10. Ali Murtaza
                                      1
                                                           ( 2025:JHHC:14886 )




11.Md. Rizwan

S.No.9 to 11 are sons of Wali Mohammad Miyan

12. Bibi Zahiran Nissa W/o Late Kashim Miyan

S.No.4 to 12 are residents of Village & P.O.-Raham, P.S.-

Tandwa, District-Chatra

13. Parmeshwar Oraon

14. Rambriksha Oraon

15. Nandlal Oraon

S.No.13 to 15 are sons of Late Ganesh Oraon

S.No.13 to 15 are residents of Village-Nawatand, P.O.-Raham, P.S.-Tandwa,
District-Chatra

16. Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, At, P.O., P.S. & District-Hzaribagh

17. Ashama Khatoon W/o Md. Jalil D/o Late Ramjan Mian, residents of Village-
Nawada(Jabra), P.O. & P.S.-Simariya, District-Chatra
18.Rajiya Khatoon

19.Rubaida Khatoon

20. Sabina Khatoon

S.No.18 to 20 are daughters of Late Sahadat Hussain

S.No.18 to 20 are residents of Village & P.O.-Raham, P.S.-Tandwa, District-Chatra

21. Zaibun Nissa W/o Hanif Miyan D/o Late Nasir Miyan, residents of Village-
Kainta, P.O. & P.S.-Tandwa, District-Chatra

22. Rabiya Khatoon W/o Gulab Miyan D/o Late Nasir Miyan, residents of Village-
Churchu, P.O. & P.S.-Barakagaon, District-Hazaribagh

23. Baharo Nissa W/o Maksood Miyan D/o Late Nasir Miyan, residents of Village-
Lohsinghna, P.O. & P.S.-Simariya, District-Chatra

24. Ashaghari Khatoon W/o Amanat Ali D/o Wali Mahamood Miyan, residents of
Village-Pandu, P.O. & P.S.-Keredari, District-Hazaribagh

                                   ....................           Opp. Parties

                ---------

CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

For the Petitioners        :Mr. Jitesh Kumar, Advocate

For the O.P. Nos. 1 to 12 and 17 to 24:- Mr. Avishek Prasad, Advocate

( 2025:JHHC:14886 )

For the O.P. Nos. 13 to 15 : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma, Advocate

For the O.P. No. 16 : Mrs. Sunita Kumari, A.C. to Sr. S.C.-II ..........

06/Dated: 10/06/2025 Heard Mr. Jitesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.

Avishek Prasad, learned counsel for the O.P. Nos. 1 to 12 and 17 to 24, Mr. Vijay

Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the O.P. Nos. 13 to 15 and Mrs. Sunita

Kumari, learned counsel for the O.P. No.16-State.

2. This petition has been filed for setting aside order dated 18.09.2024

passed by the learned District-Judge-I, Chatra in Revocation Case No. 21 of 2019

whereby the learned court has been pleased to condone the delay of about 11

years and restore the Title Appeal No. 09 of 2025.

3. Mr. Jitesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on

13.07.1988 Title Suit No. 15 of 1988 was preferred by Ramjan Mian and others

against the father and other family members of the petitioners before the learned

Sub-Judge-II, Chatra for declaration of the title of the plaintiff over the suit land

i.e. khata no. 405, plot no. 2630 and others total area 0.74 acres and for recovery

of possession by evicting defendant nos. 1 and 2 there from along with

declaration that order passed by the L.R.D.C., Chatra, Additional Collector

Hazaribag and Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribag is null, void,

illegal and inoperative. He further submits that the said suit was decreed in favour

of the petitioners herein by judgment dated 22.03.2005 and against the said

judgment the defendants -opposite parties herein preferred Title Appeal No. 09 of

2005 which was dismissed for default by order dated 01.08.2008. He submits that

thereafter Revocation Case No. 21 of 2019 was filed on 01.07.2019 after lapse of

11 years and the learned court has condoned the delay of 11 years and has

restored the said appeal. He submits that in absence of any proper explanation,

said case has been allowed and in view of that the learned court has erred as

such the impugned order may kindly be set aside. He relied in the case of "Majji

( 2025:JHHC:14886 )

Sannemma @ Sanyasirao Vs. Reddy Sridevi and others" reported in 2022

(1) Supreme 346.

4. Relying on the above judgment particularly para 7.4 he submits that

the impugned order may kindly be set aside. He further relied in the case of

" Union of India and Another Vs. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D)

through LRs.". reported in 2024 (3) Supreme 504.

5. Relying on the above judgment, he submits that the impugned order

may kindly be set aside.

6. Mr. Avishek Prasad, learned counsel for the O.P. Nos. 1 to 12 and 17

to 24 opposes the prayer and submits that delay was explained before the learned

court which was considered by impugned order dated 18.09.2024 and thereafter

the condonation was allowed. He submits that appellant no.7 Sahadat Hussain was

entrusted to conduct the case and rest of the appellants were outside for their

livelihood and Sahadat Hussain was suffering from various ailments and

ultimately he died and in view of that communication was not made to the rest of

the appellants and subsequently dismissal of title appeal for non prosecution came

to their knowledge on inspection by them on 27.06.2019 and thereafter restoration

case has been filed. He submits that all these facts have already been considered

by the learned court and the learned court has been pleased to allow the

revocation case. He relied in the case of " Collector Land Acquisition,

Anantnag and Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji and others" reported in 1987 AIR 1353.

7. Relying on the above judgment he submits that pragmatic approach

is required to be taken by the learned court as the appeal is not decided on

merit. He further relied in the case of " Raheem Shah and Anr. Vs. Govind

Singh and others" reported in 2023 INSC 651.

8. In view of above judgments, he submits that the learned court has

not erred in passing the impugned order.

9. Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the O.P. Nos. 13 to 15

( 2025:JHHC:14886 )

adopted the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners.

10. In view of above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties

the Court has gone through the materials on record. Title Suit No. 15 of 1988 was

preferred by Ramjan Mian and others against the father and other family

members of the petitioners. The said suit was decreed in favour of the petitioners

by judgment dated 22.03.2005 and against the said judgment the defendants

opposite parties herein preferred Title Appeal No. 09 of 2005 and Sahadat

Hussain was entrusted to conduct the case and rest of the appellants were outside

for their livelihood. The said Sahadat Hussain was suffering from several ailments

and ultimately he left for his heavenly abode and rest of the appellants were

outside of the State for their livelihood and on inspection of record on 27.06.2019

it transpired to them that the said appeal was dismissed for default and

subsequently revocation case was filed. Considering all these aspects the learned

court has been pleased to restore the appeal.

11. It is well settled known that appeal is a continuation of the trial

court and the appeal was not decided on merit.

12. It is well settled that the primary function of a court is to adjudicate

the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice. The time-limit

fixed for approaching the court in different situations is not because on the expiry

of such time a bad cause would transform into a good cause. Rules of limitation

are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties

do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of

providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury.

The law of limitation fixes a lifespan for such legal remedy for the redress of the

legal injury so suffered. In view of that the law of limitation is thus founded on

public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it

is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are

not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant to see that parties

( 2025:JHHC:14886 )

do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that

every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time.

13. Further condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the court.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised

only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability

of the explanation is the only criteria in condoning the delay. Sometimes delay of

the shortest range may be uncondonable due to a want of acceptable explanation

whereas in certain other cases, delay of a very long range can be condoned as the

explanation thereof is satisfactory. In every case of delay, there can be some lapse

on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his

plea and to shut the door against him. If the explanation does not smack of mala

fides or it is not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy, the court must show

utmost consideration to the suitor.

14. In the light of above and what has been discussed in the impugned

order with regard to filing of revocation case belatedly, the Court finds that the

learned court has not erred in passing the impugned order that too in a condition

when the appeal was dismissed for default which was not decided on merit.

15. In view of that the court discretion and sufficient cause was

considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of " State of Nagaland Vs.

Lipok AO and Others" reported in (2005) 3 SCC 752 wherein para 8 and 9 of

the said judgment it has been held as under:-

"8. The proof by sufficient cause is a condition precedent for exercise of the extraordinary restriction vested in the court. What counts is not the length of the delay but the sufficiency of the cause and shortness of the delay is one of the circumstances to be taken into account in using the discretion. In N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (AIR 1998 SC 3222) it was held by this Court that Section 5 is to be construed liberally so as to do substantial justice to the parties. The provision contemplates that the Court has to go in the position of the person concerned and to find out if the delay can be said to have been resulted from the cause which he had adduced and whether the cause can be recorded in the peculiar circumstances of the case is sufficient. Although no special indulgence can be shown to the Government which, in similar circumstances, is not shown to an individual suitor, one cannot but take a practical view of the working of the Government without being unduly indulgent to the slow motion of its wheels.

( 2025:JHHC:14886 )

9. What constitutes sufficient cause cannot be laid down by hard and fast rules. In New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shanti Misra (1975 (2) SCC 840) this Court held that discretion given by Section 5 should not be defined or crystallised so as to convert a discretionary matter into a rigid rule of law. The expression "sufficient cause" should receive a liberal construction. In Brij Indar Singh v. Kanshi Ram (ILR (1918) 45 Cal 94 (PC) it was observed that true guide for a court to exercise the discretion under Section 5 is whether the appellant acted with reasonable diligence in prosecuting the appeal. In Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari (AIR 1969 SC 575) a Bench of three Judges had held that unless want of bona fides of such inaction or negligence as would deprive a party of the protection of Section 5 is proved, the application must not be thrown out or any delay cannot be refused to be condoned."

16. In view of above the Court finds that there is not illegality in the

impugned order. As such this petition is dismissed. Pending I.A, if any, stands

dismissed. Interim order is vacated.

17. The said appeal will be decided in accordance with law. It is expected

that both the sides will cooperate with the appellate court. Unnecessary

adjournment will not be taken.

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

Satyarthi/A.F.R.