Abdul Kudus Sheikh @ Sona Seikh vs Karu Mulla
2025 Latest Caselaw 3080 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Abdul Kudus Sheikh @ Sona Seikh vs Karu Mulla on 4 March, 2025

Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                      S. A. No. 345 of 2016

     1. Abdul Kudus Sheikh @ Sona Seikh.
     2. Habibul Seikh @ Mona Seikh
     3. Mohirul Seikh @ Nabi Seikh
        All sons of Late Dinu Seikh, resident of Village Makdampur, P.O.
        Makdampur, P.S. Maheshpur, Sub-Division and District Pakur.
                            ...     ...      Plaintiffs/Appellants/Appellants
                             Versus
     1. Karu Mulla
     2. Bharu Mulla
        Both sons of Late Moharram Mulla, resident of Village
        Sitarampur, presently residing at Makdampur, P.O. Makdampur,
        P.S. Maheshpur, Sub-Division and District Pakur.
        ... ... Defendants 1st party/ Respondents 1st Party/Principal
                                                            Respondents
     3. Omison Bibi wife of Aziz Mandal, resident of Village Kanakpur,
        P.O. Molaypur, P.S. Moraroi, District Birbhum (W.B.).
                ... ... Proforma Defendant / Proforma Respondent.

                        ---

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Appellant : None For the Respondents : Mr. Anurag Kumar, Advocate.

---

09/04.03.2025

1. Nobody appears on behalf of the appellants.

2. Learned counsel for the respondents is present.

3. This appeal has been filed against judgment dated 26.02.2016 passed by learned District Judge-I, Pakur, in Title (Eviction) Appeal No. 03 of 2013 whereby the appeal has been dismissed.

4. The trial court's judgment is dated 23.03.2013 passed in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 09 of 2007 by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Pakur whereby the order of eviction has been passed against the appellants.

5. Today, the case was taken up in the first half and prayer for adjournment was made and the matter was directed to be taken up in

the second half. However, when the case is called in second half, nobody is appearing on behalf of the appellants.

6. The records of the case reveal that the case was repeatedly taken up by this Court and was adjourned at the request of the appellants upon payment of cost.

7. Accordingly, this second appeal is dismissed for non- prosecution.

8. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.

9. Let this order be communicated to the learned court through FAX/e-mail.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Rakesh/-