The Jharkhand High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the dismissal of an application to restore a suit for default on execution. The Bench held that the original application was barred by limitation and lacked condonation of delay, while the petitioners also failed to complete pleadings.
Writ petition dismissed.
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, RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 2275 of 2011
Sona Mani Mishra & Anr.
..... …. Petitioners
--Versus--
Shri Parmanand Tripathy & Ors. …. ….. Respondents ---
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR --For the Petitioners : Mr. Arpan Mishra, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Abhishek Kumar Dubey, Advocate ---
6/ 24.10.2018 The petitioners are aggrieved of order dated 23.02.2011 passed in Misc. Case No.3 of 2010 by which their application for restoration of Misc. Case No.3 of 2009 has been dismissed.
At the outset, Mr. Abhishek Kumar Dubey, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the application filed under section 151 CPC which was registered as Misc. Case No.3 of 2010 was not maintainable and, infact, against the dismissal of an application under Order-XLI Rule 19 CPC an appeal under Order-XLIII Rule 1 (t) CPC should have been filed.
Be that as it may, on merits I find that the petitioners have not been able to make out a case for any interference with the impugned order dated 23.02.2011. Not only Misc. Case No.3 of 2010 was instituted beyond the period of limitation, it was not accompanied with an application for condonation of delay. In the present proceeding also the petitioners, inspite of opportunities granted to them, have failed to complete the pleadings.
In view of the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.
( Shree Chandrashekhar, J. )
SI/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ court should interfere with the order dismissing the application for restoration of the suit.
Whether the application for restoration was maintainable under section 151 CPC given the dismissal of an application under Order-XLI Rule 19 CPC.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Sona Mani Mishra & Anr.
Shri Parmanand Tripathy & Ors.
Shree Chandrashekhar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
