Allowed

Kali Mahto and Anr. v. Chandra Kishore Prasad Mahto

Jharkhand HC1 May 2017C.M.P./21/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The petition sought restoration of a Second Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution due to counsel's inadvertence. The court approved the reasons and condensed the delay.

What did the court decide?

I.A. No.3382 of 2017 allowed; Civil Misc. Petition No.21 of 2016 allowed; Second Appeal No.186 of 2006 restored to original file and listed for 21.07.2017.

Kali Mahto and Anr. Vs Chandra Kishore… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Jharkhand HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No.21 of 2016

¶2

Kali Mahto @ Kalicharan Mahto & Anr. …… Petitioners Versus Chandra Kishore Prasad Mahto …… Opp. Party

¶3

---------

¶4

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA

¶5

---------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Nagmani Tiwari, Advocate For the Opp. Party : -----------

¶6

05/Dated:01.05.2017

¶7

I.A. No.3382 of 2017

¶8

This interlocutory application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 60 days in preferring the present civil miscellaneous petition.

¶9

Heard. In view of the reasons assigned in paragraph-3 to 6, of the supporting affidavit, sufficient cause and reasonable explanation is made out. Accordingly, the delay is condoned.

¶10

I.A. No.3382 stands allowed.

¶11

C.M.P. No.21 of 2016

¶12

This civil miscellaneous petition has been filed for restoration of Second Appeal No.186 of 2006, which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 15.10.2015.

¶13

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the counsel of the petitioners had taken his father for treatment to Patna on 14.10.2015 and had instructed his colleague, Sri Rajiv Lochan to seek adjournment. That unfortunately due to inadvertence the counsel could not appear as he could not mark the case and the appeal was dismissed due to non-prosecution. It is submitted that when the case was not listed then the counsel filed an inspection slip for enquiring about the status of the case whereafter he came to know that the case was dismissed for non-prosecution. That the counsel immediately informed the petitioner for filing the application. That there has been no willful laches or deliberate negligence on the part of the petitioner rather it was due to inadvertent mistake of the counsel that the case could not be prosecuted. It is submitted that the petitioners have a good case and if S.A. No.186 of 2006 is not restored to its original file, they shall suffer irreparable loss and injury.

¶14

Heard. In view of the reasons assigned, sufficient cause is made out accordingly the delay is condoned and civil miscellaneous petition stands

¶15

-2-

¶16

allowed. S.A. No.186 of 2006 is directed to be restored to its original file. Office is directed to list S.A. No.186 of 2006 on 21.07.2017 under the appropriate heading and it is made clear that if the appeal is not prosecuted on the date fixed it shall stand dismissed for non-prosecution.

¶17

(Amitav K. Gupta, J.)

¶18

Animesh/-

Kali Mahto and Anr. v. Chandra Kishore Prasad Mahto

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kali Mahto and Anr. v. Chandra Kishore Prasad Mahto

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagarnath Singh and Ors. Vs Santawan Rai and Ors.

Ajay Praveen Tigga Vs The State Of Jharkhand

State of Jharkhand And Ors. Vs Smt.Hari Dasi

Hasrath Jahan Aliab Boby And Anr. Vs Smt Kamla Choudhary And Anr.

Nirpat Ram and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner

Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited through Its Legal Manager Mr Dipankar Roy Vs MD Wasim Siddique and Ors.