Sakuntala Devi vs Rabindra Kumar Burnwal & Anr
2026 Latest Caselaw 2027 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Sakuntala Devi vs Rabindra Kumar Burnwal & Anr on 17 March, 2026

Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad

Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Sanjay Prasad

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
          First Appeal No.153 of 2019
                              ------

Sakuntala Devi .... .... Appellant Versus Rabindra Kumar Burnwal & Anr. ..... .... Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

------

      For the Appellant        : Mr. Shubham Srivatsa, Advocate
      For the Respondents      : None
                              ------
06/Dated: 17.03.2026

I.A. No.5096 of 2019

1. Reference may be made to the order dated 20.02.2026, by which,

this Court has passed the following order: -

"1. It appears from the office note dated 18.12.2020 that the appellant failed to comply with the peremptory order dated 03.03.2020, hence the appeal stood rejected on 16.03.2020. 2. Thereafter, the appeal has been restored by virtue of the order dated 24.01.2024 passed in C.M.P. No. 15 of 2021.

3. It further appears from the office note dated 17.02.2026 that the notice has been issued upon the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and the notice has been served upon respondent No. 1 and thereafter, the respondent No. 1 has appeared through Vakalatnama.

4. So far as the notice upon respondent No. 2 is concerned, it has been reported by the office note dated 17.02.2026 that as per the report of the Process Server, the notice has been served through her husband, which is available at Flag-X.

5. This Court is of the view that since the notice has been received by the husband of Respondent No. 2, as such, the notice upon respondent No. 2 is accepted to be validly served.

6. However, the name of learned counsel Mrs. Rashmi Kumar, representing the Respondent No. 1, is being reflected in the daily cause list but she has not put her appearance in today's proceeding and also there is no appearance on behalf of respondent No. 2 as yet.

7. Awaiting the appearance of respondent No. 2, list this case on 17th March, 2026."

2. Even in spite of notice deemed to be validly served, there is no

appearance on behalf of respondent no.2.

3. Today, none appears for the respondent no.1. Even on

20.02.2026, none has also appeared on behalf of respondent

no.1.

4. Even the name of the learned counsel representing the

respondent no.1 is reflecting in the daily cause-list.

5. Today the matter was listed for passing appropriate order on the

delay condonation application being I.A. No.5096 of 2019.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant on the issue

of delay condonation application.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is

delay of 24 days which has been caused due to some

misconception of applicability of law.

8. This Court, keeping into consideration the fact particularly the

period of delay, i.e., 24 days, is of the view that if the delay will not

be condoned, the appellant will suffer irreparable loss and injury

and the issue which has been raised, will remain undecided on

merit.

9. Considering the aforesaid fact, this Court is of the view that the

delay of 24 days in filing the instant appeal is to be condoned.

10. Accordingly, the delay of 24 days in filing the instant appeal, is

hereby, condoned.

11. In view thereof, I.A. No.5096 of 2019 stands allowed.

12. Heard learned counsel for the appellant on merit.

13. Admit.

14. Call for the Trial Court Records.

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

(Sanjay Prasad, J.)

17.03.2026 Rohit/-