Jharkhand High Court
Shambhu Bhumij @ Shambhunath Bhumij ... vs Kalomani Mahatan D/O Ghansi Mahatani on 17 October, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
2025:JHHC:32385
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
C.M.P. No. 925 of 2025
1. Shambhu Bhumij @ Shambhunath Bhumij Aged about 80 years son of
Vishwanath Bhumij;
2. Kalipad Bhumij aged about 63 years son of Ramnath Bhumij;
3. Joti Bhumij @ Jyotindra Singh Bhumij aged about 59 years son of Ramnath
Bhumij;
4. Rashmani Devi aged about 54 years W/of Late Deonath Bhumij;
5. Rangabala Devi aged about 26 years D/o Late Deonath Bhumij;
6. Rupchandra Bhumij aged about 60 years son of Late Jaynath Bhumij; All
resident of village Harat, P.S. Ichagarh, P.O. Soro, District- Seraikella-
Kharsawan. ..... .... Petitioners
Versus
1. Kalomani Mahatan D/o Ghansi Mahatani, resident of village Bardadih, P.S.
Ichagarh, P.O. Soro, District -Seraikella-Kharsawan (Earlier West
Singhbhum).
2. Jhalmoni Mahatani D/o Ghasi Mahatani, resident of village Jargodih, P.S.
Ichagarh, P.O. Soro, District Seraikella-Kharsawan (Earlier West
Singhbhum).
3. Pendke Mahatani D/o Ghasi Mahatani resident of village Bistatand, P.S.
Ichagarh, P.O. Soro, District Seraikella-Kharsawan (Earlier West
Singhbhum).
4. Dupli Mahatani D/o Nokul Mahato, resident of village Paharpur, P.S.
Ichagarh, P.O. Soro, District Seraikella-Kharsawan (Earlier West
Singhbhum).
5. Niatai Mahato son of Sajati Mahatani, resident of village Salupdih, P.S.
Ichagarh, P.O. Situ, District Seraikella-Kharsawan (Earlier West
Singhbhum)
6. Fekni Bala Devi W/o Late Bhushan Mahato;
7. Rampad Mahato son of Late Bhushan Mahato;
8. Shanti Devi D/o Late Bhushan Mahato;
9. Roso Mahato @ Roso Mahto Son of Late Sobaren-Mahato
10. Bhoso Mahato son of Late Sobren- Mahato;
11.Guru Mahato son of Late Sobaren Mahato;
12. Rani Mahatani W/o Late Sobaren Mahato;
13. Suku Mahato son of Manohar Mahato;
14. Most. Jhari Mahatani W/o Late Kanhai Mahato;
15. Mahipal Mahato son of Kanhai Mahato;
16. Sarosati Mahatani D/o Late Kanhai Mahto;
17. Sripati Mahto son of Jethu Mahato;
18.Vrindavan Mahato son of Jethu Mahato;
Respondents No. 6 to 18 are resident of village Baradih, P.S. now Ichagarh,
P.O. Soro, District-Seraikella-Kharsawan (Earlier West Singhbhum).
19. Shivesher Mahto son of Sukurmani Mahatani;
20. Jehla Mahto son of Sukurmani Mahatani;
21. Nolita Mahatani D/o Sukurmani Mahatani;
22. Arjun Mahato son of Kisto Mahato;
23.Mahesh Mahato son of Kistomani Mahatani;
24.Ganesh Mahato son of Kistomani Mahatani;
25.Most. Anju Mahatani D/o Kistomani Mahatani;
26.Kashinath Mahato son of Late Tara Mahato and Second Son of Kistomani
2025:JHHC:32385
Mahatani;
27.Padma Mahatani W/o Late Sonaram Mahato;
28. Jhalbora Mahatani D/o Late Sonaram Mahato;
29. Chutu Mahatani D/o Late Sonaram Mahato;
30.Muni Mahatani D/o Late Sonaram Mahato;
31. Bhudhni Mahatani D/o Late Sonaram Mahato;
32.Munna @ Binod Mahato son of Late Sonaram Mahato;
Rspondents No. 19 to 32 are resident of village Baradih, P.S. Ichagarh, P.O.
Soro, District-Seraikella-Kharsawan (Earlier West Singhbhum). A
33.Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, P.O. and P.S. Chaibasa, District
West Singhbhum.
34.Special Officer, L.A. Multipurpose Project Swarnarekha Dam at Gumgudih,
P.O. and P.S. Chandil, District Seraikella-Kharsawan.
... .... Opposite Parties
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioners : Mr. Jageshwar Mahto, Advocate
Mr. Mahesh Kr Mahto, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Anup Kr. Agarwal, AC to GA
For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Mithilesh Singh, Advocate
------
Order No. 05 / Dated : 17.10.2025.
1. The instant misc. appeal has been filed along with I.A. No. 11800 of 2025
for condonation of delay of 331 days in preferring the present restoration
application for restoring S.A. No. 112 of 2013 which was dismissed for
default for non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 06.05.2024.
2. The petitioner was the plaintiff in Original Partition Suit No. 37/1988 which
was filed for partition. The said suit was dismissed vide judgment dated
29.11.1990 by learned Sub-Judge-II, Seraikella. Against the judgment of
dismissal, Title Appeal No. 48/2003 was preferred which was also dismissed
by the learned First Appellate Court vide judgment dated 12.03.2013.
Against which, S.A. No. 112 of 2013 was preferred which has been
dismissed for default, against which the instant civil misc. has been filed.
3. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in this
interlocutory application (I.A. No. 11800 of 2025). which has been filed
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 331 days.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the delay was
not intentional and is attributed to the lapse on the part of the conducting
counsel in the said case. After the petitioner-appellant found that the case
had been dismissed for default, the file was taken and a fresh restoration
application was filed by the present counsel appearing on behalf of the
2025:JHHC:32385
petitioners-appellants.
5. Having considered the submissions and on perusal of the record, it appears
that on earlier occasion also, the second appeal was dismissed on 18.12.2015
for non-compliance to the order of the Court, which was restored vide order
dated 22.03.2024 passed in C.M.P. No. 63 of 2016. After restoration of the
appeal, the case was listed on 05.06.2024 and peremptory order was passed
to remove the surviving defects within a week which was not complied with
and consequently, said second appeal was dismissed for default. The
progress of the second appeal speaks volumes about the manner in which
the appeal has been prosecuted before this Court and the defects were not
removed despite being given several opportunities. Appellants/ Petitioners
cannot have an unlimited draught on the court hours for removing defects.
As stated above the second appeal was earlier also dismissed, and restored.
Even thereafter the defects were not removed. Grounds taken for
condonation does not disclose sufficient cause for long delay of about one
year in preferring the second restoration application.
6. Under the above stated position of facts, I do not find it a fit case for
condonation of delay.
7. Accordingly, I.A. No.11800 of 2025 stands dismissed.
8. Under the circumstance, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition stands dismissed
at the stage of admission for being barred by limitation.
Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Pawan/ -
Uploaded
17.10.2025
