Jharkhand High Court
Gitasree Pandey vs The State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) ... on 20 June, 2025
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
2025:JHHC:16205-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 297 of 2025
---
1. Gitasree Pandey, wife of Late Atindra Chandra Pandey
2. Suchitra Pandey, wife of Lokendra Chandra Pandey
3. Asimendra Chandra Pandey, son of Late Bhupendra Chandra
Pandey
4. Somark Chandra Pandey, son of Late Bhupendra Chandra
Pandey
5. Madhulata Pandey, wife of Late Purnendu Chandra Pandey
6. Rajiv Chandra Pandey, son of Late Bhupendra Chandra
Pandey
All are residents of Village- Pakur, 75- Sai Aloya, Choti Raj Bari,
P.O. & P.S.- Pakur, District- Pakur
... ... Appellants
Versus
1. The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) through the Deputy
Commissioner, Pakur
2. Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka
3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Pakur
4. Ashok Kumar, son of Late Dayal Das
5. Harish Kumar, son of Late Dayal Das
6. Tara Chand, wife of Late Master Sundar Das
7. Sanjay Kumar, son of Late Master Sundar Das
8. Sunita Devi, daughter of Late Master Sundar Das
9. Kavita Devi, daughter of Late Master Sundar Das
Sl. Nos. 4 to 9 are residents of Harind Ganga Bazar, Pakur, P.O. &
P.S.- Pakur, District- Pakur
10. Anil Tiwari
11. Babban Tiwari, son of Late Sadhan Lal Madhyan
12. Smt. Anita Kumari, daughter of Late Sadhan Lal Madhyan
13. Smt. Sarla Devi, daughter of Late Sadhan Lal Madhyan
Sl. Nos. 10 to 13 are residents of Sindhi Para, P.O., P.S. & District-
Pakur .... ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
---
For the Appellants : Mr. Akhouri Prakhar Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Aniket Rohan, Advocate
For the Resp. Nos. 1 to 3 : Mr. Jai Prakash, A.A.G.-IA
Mr. Amitesh Geasen, AC to AC to AAG-IA
For the Resp. Nos. 4 to 9 : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
---
Reserved on 17.06.2025 Pronounced on 20.06.2025
Per : Rajesh Shankar, J. :
The present appeal is directed against the order dated
30.07.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 3818
of 2010 whereby I.A No. 161 of 2024 filed for substitution of heirs/
2025:JHHC:16205-DB
legal representatives of the sole petitioner of the said writ petition
namely Bhupendra Chandra Pandey and I.A No. 162 of 2024 filed for
condonation of delay of about 1728 days in filing the substitution
petition, have been dismissed and consequently W.P.(C) No. 3818 of
2010 has also been dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the writ
petition being W.P.(C) No. 3818 of 2010 was filed for quashing the
order dated 28.05.2008 passed by the Divisional Commissioner,
Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka (the respondent no. 2) in Revenue
Misc. Revision No. 377 of 1984-85 whereby the said revision petition
filed by the sole petitioner namely Bhupendra Chandra Pandey
(since deceased) was dismissed. Moreover, the respondent no. 2
also quashed the orders of settlement of the land in question passed
by the respondent nos. 3 and 1 in favour of the predecessors-in-
interest of the respondent nos. 4 to 9.
3. It is further submitted that when the aforesaid writ petition was
listed after a long time, the conducting counsel tried to contact the
petitioner, however he could not contact him. Subsequently, few
letters were also sent at the address of the petitioner whereafter his
heirs could know about the pending litigation. The heirs thereafter
contacted the conducting counsel and informed that the petitioner
had died on 10.04.2016. Thereafter, I.A No. 161 of 2024 was filed
for substitution of legal heirs of the deceased petitioner and I.A No.
162 of 2024 was filed for condonation of delay of about 1728 days
in filing the substitution petition.
4. It is also submitted that the said interlocutory applications were
dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 30.07.2024
2025:JHHC:16205-DB
observing that there was inordinate delay of 1728 days in filing the
substitution petition as well as no reason was assigned for such a
huge delay. Consequently, the said writ petition was also dismissed.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the learned
Single Judge should have appreciated that the appellants had given
sufficient explanation for condonation of delay of 1728 days in I.A.
No. 162 of 2024 and as such the said interlocutory application was
required to be considered liberally.
6. It is also argued that on the one hand, the learned Single
Judge has dismissed W.P.(C) No. 3818 of 2010, however on the
other hand, W.P.(C) No. 3543 of 2008 filed by the predecessors of
the respondent nos. 4 to 9 against the order dated 28.05.2008
passed by the respondent no. 2 in which the deceased petitioner
was arrayed as the respondent no. 5, has been admitted. In such
circumstance, the appellants will suffer irreparable loss and injury if
they are not allowed to be substituted.
7. Learned counsel for the contesting private respondent nos. 4
to 9 submits that W.P.(C) No. 3818 of 2010 was tagged with W.P.(C)
No. 3543 of 2008 and both the cases were taken up on several
occasions, however the counsel appearing for the deceased
petitioner never informed the Court about the death of the petitioner
and after a huge delay of 1728 days, I..A No. 161 of 2024 was filed
by the heirs of the deceased petitioner for their substitution in the
case and I.A. No. 162 of 2024 was filed for condoning the delay of
1728 days in filing the substitution petition which were rightly
dismissed by the learned Single Judge observing that no ground for
condoning the inordinate delay in filing substitution petition was
2025:JHHC:16205-DB
assigned.
8. It is further submitted that rule 99 of the High Court of
Jharkhand Rules, 2001 provides that whenever any party to a
proceeding pending in the Court dies and an application is filed for
bringing on record the legal representatives of said party, such
application shall be dealt with and disposed of in accordance with
the procedure prescribed and contained in Order XXII of the Code of
Civil Procedure and to that extent, the provisions of this Order XXII
of C.P.C. shall mutatis mutandis apply to all such proceedings.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
materials available on record.
10. The short question falls for consideration of this Court is as to
whether the delay of 1728 days in filing the substitution petition
seeking substitution of legal representatives of the writ petitioner
was required to be condoned by the learned Single Judge in the
given facts and circumstances of the case.
11. Thrust of the argument of learned counsel for the appellants is
that the appellants came to know about the pendency of W.P.(C) No.
3818 of 2010 only after receiving the letters from the conducting
counsel. Thereafter, they informed the conducting counsel about
death of the writ petitioner and due to the said reason, the delay of
about 1728 days occurred in filing the substitution petition.
12. We have perused the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
rendered in the case of Sharafat Hussain (dead) through LRs &
Others Vs. Mohd. Shafiq & Others reported in (1996) 10 SCC
253 wherein after death of the sole appellant on 01.12.1990, the
application for substitution could not be filed due to the delay
2025:JHHC:16205-DB
occurring on the part of the counsel appearing for the deceased-
appellant as sworn in by him in his affidavit. Consequently, the
appeal having been abated was dismissed on 18.11.1991. The
heirs/legal representatives of the deceased appellant filed
application on 04.05.1992 for setting aside the abatement,
condonation of the delay in filing the application and to bring the
legal representatives of the sole appellant on record. The said
application was dismissed by the High Court, however the Hon'ble
Supreme Court allowed the appeal by setting aside the abatement
as well as condoning the delay in bringing the legal representatives
of the deceased appellant on record by holding that the delay had
occurred since the counsel appearing for the deceased sole appellant
could not communicate the legal representatives regarding the
information furnished by the respondents about the death and that
the legal representatives obviously were not aware of the appeal
filed by their father; that resulted in abatement for not bringing the
legal representatives on record.
13. It is a settled principle of law that the writ courts have
discretion to condone the delay in filing of substitution petition in the
given facts and circumstances of the case to do the substantial
justice between the parties if the delay is properly explained and if
there is no negligence or inaction on the part of the aggrieved party.
14. The Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra (Dead) by LRs and Others
Vs. Pramod Gupta (Smt) (dead) by LRs and Others reported in
(2003) 3 SCC 272, has held that laws of procedure are meant to
regulate effectively, assist and aid the object of doing substantial
2025:JHHC:16205-DB
and real justice and not to foreclose an adjudication on merits of
substantial rights of citizen under personal, property and other laws.
Procedure has always been viewed as the handmaid of justice and
not meant to hamper the cause of justice or sanctify miscarriage of
justice. It has further been held that a careful reading of the
provisions contained in Order XXII C.P.C. as well as the subsequent
amendments thereto would lend credit and support to the view that
those were devised to ensure their continuation and culmination in
an effective adjudication and not to retard the further progress of
the proceedings and thereby non-suit the others similarly placed as
long as their distinct and independent rights to property or any claim
remain intact and not lost forever due to the death of one or the
other in the proceedings. The provisions contained in Order XXII of
C.P.C. are not be construed as a rigid matter of principle but must
ever be viewed as a flexible tool of convenience in the administration
of justice.
15. In the present case also, the legal representatives of the
deceased petitioner were not aware of the filing of the writ petition
and they informed about the death of the petitioner to the
conducting counsel after receiving his letters and thereafter the
petition for substitution was filed. Thus, it appears that the delay in
filing the substitution petition was not intentional and the same was
required to be condoned by the learned Single Judge to do the
conscionable justice to the appellants.
16. That apart, the writ petitioner was claiming his right, title and
interest over the land in question on the ground that the same was
acquired under section 25 'A' of the Rent Regulation 2 of 1886 in the
2025:JHHC:16205-DB
year 1912-13 and after the said acquisition, the provisions of Santhal
Parganas Tenancy Act, 1949 have no application on the said land as
it is a private land of the ex-intermediary. Thus, looking to the
nature of the dispute, we are of the opinion that the appellants will
suffer irreparable loss and injury if they are not substituted as
petitioners in the writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 3818 of 2010.
17. In our view, there is sufficient reason for condoning delay and
allowing substitution taking into account the facts and circumstances
of this case. Having regard to the cumulative effect of all these facts,
we are satisfied that the appellants have made out a sufficient case
for condoning the delay in seeking substitution.
18. We, accordingly, set aside the order dated 30.07.2024 passed
in W.P.(C) No. 3818 of 2010. The appellants are allowed to be
substituted as writ petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 3818 of 2010 subject to
payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the contesting private respondent
nos. 4 to 9 within six weeks. The writ petition is remanded to the
learned Single Judge to hear the matter on merit.
19. The appeal is allowed with the aforesaid observations.
(M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
A.F.R.
Ritesh/
