[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Bandhani Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand & Others ... on 30 January, 2026
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cont. Case (Civil) No. 1170 of 2024
-----
Bandhani Devi .......... Petitioner
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand & Others .......... Opp. Parties
-----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Prem Pujari Roy, Advocate
For the O.P. No.1 : Mr. Arun Kumar Dubey, AC to GP-III
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Om Prakash Tiwari, Advocate
For the O.P. No. 3 : Mr. Amritanshu Singh, Advocate
-----
Order No.16 Date: 30.01.2026
I.A. No. 9905 of 2025:
1. The present interlocutory application has been filed by the
applicant-Pratima Devi seeking her impleadment in place
of sole petitioner-Bandhani Devi.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the original
petitioner-Bandhani Devi happened to be the mother-in-
law of the applicant, who has died during the pendency of
the present contempt petition on 08.05.2025. He furnishes
a copy of death certificate of the original petitioner which
is taken on record.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant, while referring
paragraph No. 7 of the present interlocutory application,
submits that the applicant is the surviving legal heir of the
original petitioner and she has two minor children aged
about 14 & 10 years. Hence, the applicant, whose
description has been given in paragraph no. 8 of the
present interlocutory application, may be permitted to be
substituted in place of the sole deceased petitioner.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective
opposite parties have no objection to the said prayer.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and for the
reasons stated in the present interlocutory application, the
heir/legal representative of the sole deceased petitioner,
whose description has been given in paragraph no. 8 of
the present interlocutory application, is permitted to be
substituted in her place.
6. Necessary substitution in the cause title of the present
case be made by the counsel for the petitioner in course
of the day.
7. I.A. No. 9905 of 2025 is, accordingly, disposed of.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner submits that
Vakalatnama on behalf of the newly substituted petitioner
has been filed along with the aforesaid interlocutory
application.
I.A. No. 618 of 2026:
9. The present interlocutory application has been filed on
15.01.2026 on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 seeking
16 weeks' more time to comply the order dated
01.05.2024 passed in W.P. (S) No. 3870 of 2021.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and for the
reasons stated in the present interlocutory application, the
opposite party no. 2 is reluctantly granted time till
08.04.2026 to comply the aforesaid order and to file
compliance affidavit.
2 Cont. Case (Civil) No. 1170 of 2024
11. It is made clear that no further time shall be granted to
the opposite party no. 2 for the said purpose and in case
of non-compliance of the aforesaid order, appropriate
order against him shall be passed on the next date fixed.
12. I.A. No. 618 of 2026 is, accordingly, disposed of.
Cont. Case (Civil) No. 1170 of 2024:
13. Put up this case under the heading "For Admission" on
10.04.2026.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
30.01.2026
Vikas/
3 Cont. Case (Civil) No. 1170 of 2024
