Janardhan Narayan Deo vs Sahdeo Modi
2025 Latest Caselaw 365 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Janardhan Narayan Deo vs Sahdeo Modi on 9 May, 2025

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

                                                     ( 2025:JHHC:14071 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                     C.M.P. No. 903 of 2024
                                -----

1. Janardhan Narayan Deo, aged about 56 years, son of Late Sarju Narayan Deo, resident of Village -Chandania,

2. Tunu Devi, aged about 57 years, widow of Late Sanjay Singh, for herself and for on behalf of her minor children namely Lovely Kumari, Rani Kumari, Rishi Raj and Pratigya of Village Dulho

3. Kameshwar Modi, aged about 74 years, son of Late Kali Modi, resident of Village -Dhanwar All under P.O. & P.S. -Dhanwar, District -Giridih.

... Petitioners Versus

1. Sahdeo Modi, son of Late Nathu Modi

2. Uma Devi, wife of Sahdeo Modi Both residents of Village -Dhanwar, P.O. & P.S. Dhanwar, District -Giridih.

3. Sudama Devi, widow of Late Prabhu Dayal Modi,

4. Anil Burnwal,

5. Tinku Burnwal,

6. Sunil Burnwal,

7. Suraj Kumar Burnwal, Sl. Nos. 4 to 7 -sons of Late Prabhu Dayal Burnwal Sl. Nos. 3 to 7 are residents of Village -Dhanwar, P.O. & P.S. Dhanwar, District -Giridih.

8. Sarita Devi, wife of Vijay Modi, resident of village -Palalo, P.O. & P.S. Tisri, District -Giridih

9. Balo Devi, wife of Pankaj Burnwal, resident of village, P.O. & P.S. Jai Nagar, District -Giridih.

10. Baby Devi, wife of Sanjay Modi, resident of Village - Alagdih, P.O. & P.S. -Barkatha, District -Hazaribagh

11. Ruby Devi, wife of Sudhir Modi, resident of Village - Kherabad, P.O. & P.S. -Sariya, District -Giridih.

12. Vina Devi, wife of Mukesh Modi, resident of Village - Kolhadih, P.O. & P.S. -Jai Nagar, District -Koderma.

13. Kau Rana, son of Late Banshi Rana

14. Rajendra Burnwal, Son of late Bajo Modi

15. Bhagwan Das Modi, son of Late Bajo Modi Nos. 13 to 15, residents of Village -Dhanwar, P.O. & P.S. Dhanwar, District -Giridih.

16. Devanti Devi, wife of Arjun Modi, resident of Village - Beko, P.O. -Nawagarh, P.S. -Dhanwar, District -Giridih.

17. Arjun Modi, son of Late Harihar Modi, resident of village - Dhanwar, P.O. & P.S. -Dhanwar, District -Giridih.

18. Ravindra Modi, son of Gaya Lal Modi, resident of Village -

Dhanwar, P.O. & P.S. Dhanwar, District -Giridih.

19. Chinta Devi, wife of Ram Chandra Modi, resident of Baadha Singha, P.O. -Barkhatta, P.S. -Koderma (Now Barkatha), District -Hazaribagh.

                                            ...       Opposite Parties
                                    ------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

------

For the Petitioners : Mr. Vikesh Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Sanket Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Akhouri Prakhar Sinha, Advocate

------

Order No.06 Dated- 09.05.2025

1. Heard the parties.

2. This interlocutory application has been filed with a prayer to condone the delay of 395 days in filing this civil miscellaneous petition with a prayer to restore Second Appeal No. 19 of 2020 to its original file.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners came to know about the Execution Case No. 10 of 2024 and when they appeared in the Execution Case No. 10 of 2024, they came to know about dismissal of Second Appeal No. 19 of 2020 and immediately thereafter on 20.08.2024, this instant civil miscellaneous petition was filed. It is next submitted that there is no deliberate laches on the part of the appellants, who are the petitioners herein, rather the delay is bonafide.

4. Learned counsel for the opposite parties on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for condonation of delay. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that the petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is vague and there is no whisper, as to what stopped the petitioners to file this civil miscellaneous petition within the statutory time. Relying upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Limited Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and Another, reported in 2010 AIR SCW 1788, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held in that case that when the averments in the affidavit are found to lacks bonafide, then the case falls within the exception to the rule of liberal approach and it does not deserve the liberal approach formula in matters relating to condonation of delay without proper explanation as to why, the said delay occurred. It is then submitted that there is absolutely no ground mentioned, as to why, the appellants who were represented by a lawyer in the said Second Appeal No. 19 of 2020 and who was present on 10.05.2023, obviously on the instruction of the appellants, did not remove the defects as pointed out by the stamp reporter, within the peremptory time of six weeks, from 10.05.2023. Hence, it is submitted that there is no justifiable cause for condoning the huge delay of 395 days. It is next submitted that vide order dated 10.01.2025, this civil miscellaneous petition has been abated against the opposite party nos. 3 and 13. So in their absence, no effective adjudication of the dispute can take place but knowingly and with malafide intention, the petitioners have not made any prayer for substitution of the legal representatives of the opposite party nos. 3 & 13. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners' intent is to get the delay condoned, behind the back of the legal representatives of the opposite party nos. 3 & 13; which is also not permissible in law. It is lastly submitted that the prayer to condone the delay of 395 days as prayed for in this interlocutory application being without any merit be rejected and this interlocutory application being not maintainable in law and being devoid of any merit be dismissed.

5. Having heard the submissions made at the bar and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is pertinent to mention here that on 10.05.2023, the Second Appeal No. 19 of 2020 was listed before this Bench under the Heading "orders (with defects)". The learned counsel for the appellants of Second Appeal No. 19 of 2020 prayed for six weeks' time to remove the defects as pointed out by the stamp reporter. The same was allowed by this Court conditionally by directing the appellants to remove the defects as pointed out by the stamp reporter within six weeks from 10.05.2023, failing which, the said Second Appeal No. 19 of 2020 shall be dismissed without further reference to the Bench. It is crystal clear from the said order dated 10.05.2023, since the appellants were represented through their lawyer Mr. Vikesh Kumar, so the appellants were very much aware about the order dated 10.05.2023 but there is absolutely no explanation, as to why the appellants did not remove the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter in the Second Appeal No. 19 of 2020. Further, the appellants are also silent about the receipt of the memo served by the Registry on 01.07.2023 upon the counsel of the appellants intimating the dismissal of Second Appeal No. 19 of 2020 consequent upon failure of the appellants to remove the defects; as pointed out by the stamp reporter. So the materials in the record are sufficient to indicate the laches on the part of the appellants and it is fallacious on the part of the petitioners, to claim that they came to know about dismissal of Second Appeal No. 19 of 2020, for the first time after they came to know about the Execution Case No. 10 of 2024; obviously, it is crystal clear from the year of the execution of the case, the appellants claimed to be aware about the same only in the year 2024, whereas the memo was already served upon them intimating dismissal of Second Appeal No. 19 of 2020 on 01.07.2023.

6. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that there is absolutely no explanation for the delay which took place from 01.07.2023 to till the year 2024, the exact date of which, of course, has not been mentioned by the petitioners. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that this is a case where there is absolutely no cause, let alone any sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing this civil miscellaneous petition no.903 of 2024. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the inordinate and unexplained delay of 395 days be condoned.

7. Accordingly, this interlocutory application being without any merit is dismissed.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

In view of dismissal of the interlocutory application no. 10531 of 2024 filed with the prayer for condonation of delay of 395 days in filing this civil miscellaneous petition, this civil miscellaneous petition is also dismissed being barred by limitation.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) AFR-Sonu-Gunjan/