Allowed

Sangita Kumari Bhagat and Anr. v. Shova Devi

Jharkhand HC15 Jun 2017C.M.P./537/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed an interim application to condone a 90-day delay in filing a petition for restoration of a first appeal previously dismissed due to non-prosecution by counsel. The delay was justified by the counsel's engagement in another court.

What did the court decide?

The application for condonation of delay was allowed. The First Appeal No. 204 of 2013 was restored to its original file to be listed on 02.08.2017.

Sangita Kumari Bhagat and Anr. Vs Shova Devi — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Jharkhand HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 537 of 2016 With I.A. no. 1140 of 2017

¶2

Sangita Kumari Bhagat and Anr. ………..Petitioners Versus Shova Devi ………. Opp. Party

¶3

---------

¶4

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

¶5

---------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Onkar Nath Tiwary, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Amit Kumar Verma, Advocate -----------

¶6

05/Dated:15.06.2017

¶7

I.A. no. 1140 of 2016

¶8

This interlocutory application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning delay of 90 days in filing the miscellaneous petition for restoration of F.A. no. 204 of 2013 which was dismissed vide order dated 19.05.2016 for nonprosecution due to non-appearance of the counsel for the appellants/petitioners.

¶9

It is submitted that learned counsel for the petitioners could not appear in the court as he was engaged in a case in another court consequently due to nonappearance of the counsel, F.A. no. 204 of 2013 was dismissed. That the petitioners were informed and on advice of the counsel, the present civil miscellaneous petition has been filed. That there is no deliberate or intentional laches on the part of the petitioners rather it was due to engagement in a case in another court, the counsel could not appear, resulting in non-prosecution and dismissal of the first appeal. That the petitioners have a good case, and if the delay is not condoned and F.A. no. 204 of 2013 is not restored to its original file, the petitioners shall suffer irreparable loss and injury.

¶10

Learned counsel on behalf of opposite parties has opposed and submitted that there is no sufficient explanation made out hence the application should be dismissed.

¶11

Heard. In view of the reasons assigned in the supporting affidavit, satisfactory explanation is made out, accordingly, the delay is condoned, the miscellaneous petition stands allowed and F.A.no.204 of 2013 is directed to be restored to its original file.

¶12

I.A. no. 1140 of 2017 stands allowed.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner shall remove the defects as pointed out by the office in F.A. no. 204 of 2013 within two weeks.

¶14

If the defects are so removed, office is directed to list F.A. no. 204 of 2013 on 02.08.2017.

¶15

(Amitav K. Gupta, J.)

¶16

Tarun /-

Sangita Kumari Bhagat and Anr. v. Shova Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangita Kumari Bhagat and Anr. v. Shova Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gopal Ram Ganjhu And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Chamru Mian Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Smt Paramanik Upasi and Ors. Vs the Union of India through the General Manager South Eastern Railway

Sardar Jaswant Singh Bedi Vs Simranjeet Singh Bedi

Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited through Its Legal Manager Mr Dipankar Roy Vs Kalawati Devi and Ors.

Anil Bhagat and Ors. Vs Smt Jasoda Devi