Allowed

Gurudayal Singh Ganjhu and Anr. v. Jogeshwar Ganjhu and Ors.

Jharkhand HC9 Jun 2017Cr.M.P./214/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Justice Amitav K. Gupta allowed the condonation of delay in filing a Miscellaneous Petition. The court accepted the explanation that the petitioners were unaware of their counsel's death, which led to non-prosecution of a revision application. The petition stands allowed, restoring the case to the file.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay; Cr.M.P No. 214 of 2017 allowed; Cr.Rev. No. 118/1997(R) restored to original file; case listed for 04.07.2017.

Gurudayal Singh Ganjhu and Anr. Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Jharkhand HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P No. 214 of 2017 With I.A No. 1177/2017

¶2

-----

¶3

Gurudayal Singh & Ors. Petitioners

¶4

Versus Jageshwar Ganjhu& Ors. …… Opp.Parties -----

¶5

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

¶6

-----

¶7

For the Petitioner : Mrs.Ritu Kumar, Advocate

¶8

For the Respondent No.1 &2 : JC to Mr.H.K.Shikarwar, Advocate ---- 06/ Dated : 9th June, 2017

¶9

I.A No.1177/2017 has been filed for condonation of delay of 602 days in preferring the miscellaneous application. It is submitted by learned counsel that Cr.Rev. No.118/1997(R) was filed before the Ranchi Bench, of Patna High Court, and the conducting counsel was Mr.Amareshwar Sahay. That in course of pendency of the revision, Mr.Amareshwar Sahay was elevated as an Hon'ble Judge of this Court. That the petitioners were informed by him that stay had been granted by the Court and due to his elevation as an Hon'ble Judge, he had handed over the file to Mr.P.S.N.Roy. That the petitioners were under the impression that Mr.P.S.N.Roy was taking steps in the case.

¶10

That on 19.01.2017, they visited the High Court to enquire about the status of the case but they were shocked to learn that Mr.P.S.N.Roy had died. The petitioners were anxious to know about the status of their case and they filed an inspection slip by engaging a new counsel whereupon they came to learn that the case was dismissed by order dated 20.02.2015 due to non-prosecution.

¶11

It is submitted that there has been no deliberate negligence on the part of the petitioners rather they were not informed by the counsels about the death of Mr.P.S.N.Roy hence they could not take necessary steps in the case. It is submitted that the petitioners have preferred Cr.M.P No.214/2017 for restoration of Cr.Rev. No.118/1997(R) and if the delay in preferring this miscellaneous petition is not condoned and the aforesaid criminal revision is not restored to its original file, the

¶12

petitioners shall suffer irreparable loss and an injury as they have a good case.

¶13

Learned counsel for respondent no.1 and 2 is in attendance. Heard. Being satisfied that the petitioners were prevented by sufficient cause in not prosecuting the case due to the reasons assigned in the supporting affidavit, the delay is condoned and the Cr.M.P No. 214 of 2017 stands allowed accordingly, Cr.Rev. No.118/1997(R) is restored to its original file.

¶14

Office is directed to list Cr.Rev. No.118/1997(R) under the appropriate heading on 04.07.2017 and it is made clear that if the case is not prosecuted on the next date, it shall stand dismissed for nonprosecution.

¶15

(Amitav K. Gupta, J.)

¶16

dey

Gurudayal Singh Ganjhu and Anr. v. Jogeshwar Ganjhu and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurudayal Singh Ganjhu and Anr. v. Jogeshwar Ganjhu and Ors.

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

Anita Khawas Vs Shiv Nath Khawas

Nasim Ansari Vs Baijun Murmu And Anr.

Soma Munda And Ors. Vs Ram Kishor Bhagat And Ors.

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Represented through Its Sr Divisional Manager Vs Chhuma Devi and Ors.

Sunil Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Anamika Vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors.