In this revision petition, the High Court of Jharkhand dismissed the appeal as the petitioners failed to appear and attend to necessary deficiencies despite multiple calls and granted stays, indicating a lack of intent to prosecute.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
C.R..NO.22 of 2016
----
1. Ghanshyam Mahto
2. Somar Mahto Both sons of late Horil Mahto.
3. Chando Mahto, son of late Puna Mahto.
All resident of village-Medho Chaprakho, P.O.Lataki, P.S.Jamua, DistrictGiridih. …Petitioners.
Versus
Tejlal Yadav, s/o late Dipan Mahto, r80/o village-Medho Chaprakho,P.O.Lataki, P.S.Jamua, Distrcit-Giridih.
…Opp.party.
---- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA
--------- For the Petitioner : None.. For the O.P. : ------
---------
05/06.02.2018 On repeated call none appears on behalf of petitioners.
On perusal of the record it transpires that on 21.07.2016 three weeks time was granted by the Joint Registrar(Judl) for removing the defects pointed out by the office. When the defect was not removed the matter was placed before the Registrar General on 23.08.2016 but none had appeared before the Registrar General and two weeks time was granted for removing the defects, however, defect was not removed. Today also none has appeared on behalf of petitioner on repeated call neither defect has been removed.
It appears that petitioners are not interested in prosecuting
the case. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. (Amitav K. Gupta, J.)
Biswas.
Ghanshyam Mahto
Somar Mahto
Chando Mahto
Tejlal Yadav
Amitav K. Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
