Smt. Gita Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 6262 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Smt. Gita Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 October, 2025

Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary

                                                       2025:JHHC:30947




IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                      C. M. P. No. 885 of 2025
                                   -----

1. Smt. Gita Devi, W/o Laxmi Saw

2. Laxmi Saw, S/o Late Baso Saw, Both R/o Village-Khamharbad, Tola-Kheduadih, P.O.-Kharagdiha, P.S.-Jamua, Dist.-Giridih ... .... Petitioners Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Karu Saw, S/o Late Harkhu Saw, R/o Village-Khamharabad, Tola- Kheduadih, P.O.-Kharagdiha, P.S.-Jamua, Dist.-Giridih

3. Smt. Damyanti Devi, W/o Sri Sarju Prasad, R/o Village-Kharagdiha, P.O.-Kharagdiha, P.S.-Jamua, Dist.-Giridih ... .... Opp. Parties

-----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

-----

For the Petitioners : Mr. Arwind Kumar, Advocate For the O.P.- State : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, AC to G.A.-1

-----

Oral Order 02 / Dated : 07.10.2025

1. The present petitioners were the appellants in Title Appeal No. 50/2011 which was dismissed for default on 23.02.2018. The petitioners filed an application for restoration under Order XLI Rule 19 of CPC which was registered as Misc. Case No. 14/2018. The said restoration case was also dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 09.08.2023.

2. Being aggrieved by the same, the instant civil misc. petition has been filed.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner no. 1 had suffered burn injury and was incapacitated on account of her treatment to attend the Court on the said date and, therefore, no proper step could be taken.

4. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the plaintiffs' suit was decreed in 2011 and the appeal against the judgment and decree was dismissed for default and the restoration application has also been dismissed for non-prosecution.

5. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides, it is apparent that there is no reference when petitioner no. 1 suffered burn injury for which she claims to be in continuous treatment till date. Even if it is assumed that she was under treatment, there is no reason 2025:JHHC:30947

whatsoever that why any step was not taken on behalf of petitioner no. 2 in the restoration case.

6. Litigants cannot be allowed an unlimited drought on the court hour in pursuing their legal remedy, on vague and sketchy grounds. Plaintiffs' suit has been decreed way back in 2011, and the defendant has pursued the appeal and its subsequent restoration application in a most casual and lackadaisical manner.

7. I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order considering the conduct of the petitioners.

This Civil Misc. Petition is shorn of any merit and is, consequently, dismissed.

Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) 07th October, 2025 AKT/Satyendra