[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Mohan Mahto And Others vs Lakhan Lal And Others on 30 January, 2026
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S. A. No. 88 of 1984 (R)
With
I.A. No. 14039 of 2025
With
I.A. No. 14044 of 2025
With
I.A. No. 1301 of 2026
Mohan Mahto and Others ... ... Appellants
Versus
Lakhan Lal and Others ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Appellants : Mr. Laxman Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Ayush Aditya, Advocate
---
49/30.01.2026
I.A No. 14039 of 2025 with I.A. No. 14044 of 2025 and I.A. No.
1301 of 2026
1. Mr. Ayush Aditya, the learned counsel has submitted that
though he had filed Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No. 2(a) and
2(b), but the client has taken 'No Objection' from him and therefore,
he has no instructions with respect to respondent No.2(a) and 2(b). So
far as proposed legal heirs of respondent No.3 i.e. 3(a) to 3(g) are
concerned, he has submitted that they have already entered appearance
through him.
2. Nobody has entered appearance on behalf of the proposed legal
heirs and successors of respondent No.5, although as per order dated
05.01.2026, the respondent No. 5(a) and 5(c) and also respondent Nos.
6(a) and 6(b) have been served the notice.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the
interlocutory application being I.A. No. 14039 of 2025 is in relation to
substitution of Lakhanlal (respondent No.2), Bukan Mian (respondent
No.3), Abdul Karim (respondent No.4), Mahabir Mahto (respondent
No.5) and Aghnu Mahto (respondent No.6).
4. The prayer for substitution of respondent No. 4 namely Abdul
Karim made through I.A. No. 14039 of 2025 has already been rejected
vide order dated 06.11.2025. Further the prayer for substitution made
through I.A. No. 14039 of 2025 with respect to respondent No.1(a)
and 1(b) has also been rejected vide order dated 06.11.2025.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that I.A No.
1301 of 2026 has been filed for deletion of one of the proposed legal
heir of respondent No.2 i.e. respondent No. 2(c) and one of the
proposed legal heir of respondent No. 5 i.e. respondent No.5(b) in the
petition of I.A. No. 14039 of 2025. The learned counsel has further
submitted that they have not been able to find out the details of legal
heirs and successors of the aforesaid persons and has also submitted
that their interest is already represented by the other proposed legal
heirs and successors of deceased respondent No.2 and 5 respectively
and therefore, a prayer has been made through this interlocutory
application that the names of proposed respondent No.2(c) and
respondent No. 5(b) be permitted to be deleted.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection, so far as
the deletion of proposed legal heirs i.e. respondent No. 2(c) and 5(b) is
concerned.
7. Accordingly, prayer made through I.A. No. 1301 of 2026 for
deleting the name of one of the legal heirs and successors of
respondent No.2 i.e. respondent No. 2(c) and name of one of the
proposed legal heirs and successors of respondent No.5 i.e. respondent
No. 5(b), is allowed and their name is permitted to be deleted from
I.A. No. 14039 of 2025.
8. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1301 of 2026 is disposed of.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants is directed to carry out the
necessary amendments in I.A. No. 14039 of 2025 during the course of
the day.
10. I.A. No. 14044 of 2025 has been filed seeking condonation of
delay in filing the substitution petition being I.A No. 14039 of 2025
with a prayer for setting aside abatement.
11. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the
second appeal was wrongly shown as dismissed by the registry and the
status has been rectified after the order passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court on 21.07.2025, therefore, during the pendency when
the matter was not listed before this Court, no petition for substitution
was filed.
12. The aforesaid fact regarding the status of the case and its listing
is not in dispute by the learned counsel for the appearing respondents
and is apparent from the records of this case.
13. After hearing the learned counsel for the aforesaid parties and
being satisfied with the cause shown, delay in filing the petition for
substitution as explained in I.A. No. 14044 of 2025 is condoned and
the prayer for setting aside abatement to the extent it relates to
respondent Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6 is also allowed in the circumstances
mentioned in I.A. No. 14044 of 2025. I.A. No. 14044 of 2025 is
allowed with respect to respondent Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6.
14. I.A No. 14039 of 2025 seeking substitution of respondent No.2,
3, 5 and 6 is allowed.
15. Learned counsel for the appellants is directed to delete the name
of respondent Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6 from the cause title and insert the
names of their legal heirs and successors during the course of the day .
16. The hearing of this case has commenced.
17. The learned counsel for the appellants has placed the substantial
questions of law framed by this Court vide order dated 08.07.1996.
18. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the
2nd substantial question of law is covered by the judgments of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2019) 20 SCC 633 (Murugan &
Others vs. Kesava Gounder (dead) Thr. LRs. & Others) and 2025
Supreme (SC) 1779 (K. S. Shivappa vs. Smt. K. Neelamma).
19. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that for
further hearing, any date may be fixed in the next week.
20. As per the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated
21.07.2025, the case was to be decided within a period of three
months. Three months has expired and the case has remained pending
primarily on account of pending substitution petitions.
21. The matter is directed to be posted for further hearing under the
heading for 'Final Disposal' on 04th February 2026 as the first case at
10:30 A.M.
22. No prayer for adjournment will be entertained on the next date.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
30.01.2026
Rakesh/-
