The Court dismissed a third restoration petition filed for a previously dismissed miscellaneous petition. It held that the petitioner's repeated negligence and lackadaisical approach in prosecuting appeals and petitions warranted strict treatment without indulgence.
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.M.P. No.471 of 2017
1. Santosh Kumar Gupta 2. Sunil Kumar Gupta 3. Krishna Kumar Gupta 4. Sujit Kumar Gupta 5. Suraj Kumar Gupta 6. Susil Kumar Gupta 7. Pawan Kumar …… Petitioners Versus
Bhagwan Das Gupta & Others …… Opp. Parties
--------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA
--------For the Petitioners : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Saraswat, Advocate For the Opp. Parties :
06 / Dated : 12th October, 2018
1. This civil miscellaneous petition has been filed for restoration of C.M.P. No.147 of 2017 which was dismissed for non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 06.10.2017.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel that due to bonafide mistake the order could not be complied with resulting in dismissal of C.M.P. No.147 of 2017. The said petition was filed for restoration of Miscellaneous Appeal No.236 of 2003 which was dismissed for default vide order dated 01.03.2017. That the C.M.P. No.147 of 2017 was listed and the order for removal of defects could not be complied due to inadvertence and bonafide mistake. It is stated that the learned counsel was contemplating to take steps for complying with the order, however, due to ensuing Diwali vacation the defect could not be removed whereupon said miscellaneous petition was dismissed. It is submitted that if C.M.P. No.147 of 2017 is not restored to its original file, the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injury.
3. Having heard the counsel and on going through the materials on record, it transpires that earlier C.M.P. No.329 of 2009 was filed for restoration of M.A. No.236 of 2003 which was restored vide order dated 20.01.2015. Again M.A. No.236 of 2003 stood dismissed for default vide order dated 01.03.2017. Thereafter, C.M.P. No.147 of 2017 was filed for restoration of the said miscellaneous appeal and due to non-compliance of the peremptory order it was dismissed and now instant civil miscellaneous petition has been filed for restoration of C.M.P. No.147 of 2017. From the exposited facts, it is evident
that the petitioner has been grossly negligent in prosecuting the miscellaneous appeal as well as the civil miscellaneous petitions. The present civil miscellaneous petition has been filed for restoration of another civil miscellaneous petition. It is evident that this is the third time that such negligence has been displayed by the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, such negligent and lackadaisical approach has to be dealt strictly as any indulgence will amount to adding premium to such gross negligent conduct on the part of the petitioner. 4. In the result, this civil miscellaneous petition is, hereby, dismissed.
(Amitav K. Gupta, J.)
NKC
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a civil miscellaneous petition filed for restoration of a previously dismissed petition should be restored when the petitioner has displayed gross negligence and repeated defaults in prosecuti
Santosh Kumar Gupta & Ors.
Bhagwan Das Gupta & Others
Amitav K. Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
