Allowed

Chhedilal Poddar v. Jadu Mahto

Jharkhand HC8 Aug 2019WPC/1325/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order dismissing a miscellaneous appeal on grounds of delay. The High Court held that the delay was justified due to non-service of notice caused by the respondent furnishing an incorrect address. The impugned order was quashed.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 24.01.2014 was quashed and set aside, condoning the delay. The Principal District Judge, Dhanbad was directed to expedite disposal.

Chhedilal Poddar Vs Jadu Mahto — Property and Title | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 1325 of 2014

¶3

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

¶4

--For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Prasad, Advocate For the Res. No. 1 : None ---

¶5

08/08.08.2019 Heard Mr. Sanjay Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶6

None appears on behalf of the respondent no. 1 in spite of valid service of notice.

¶7

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 24.01.2014 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Dhanbad in Misc. Appeal No. 77 of 2011 by which the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order passed in Suit No. 2957 of 2007 has been dismissed on the ground of delay.

¶8

It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent no. 1 had filed a suit under Section 87 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act (C.N.T. Act in short) which was decided ex parte. It has been stated that the petitioner deliberately had not indicated the full address of the petitioner which led to non-service of notice upon the petitioner and even in the newspaper publication wrong address of the petitioner was given. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner was not aware about the order passed in Suit No. 2957 of 2007 and as soon as he came to know about the said order he had applied for certified copy of the same and, therefore, had preferred an appeal after 486 days which was not properly appreciated by the learned Principal District Judge, Dhanbad leading to its rejection vide order dated 24.01.2014.

¶9

The factual aspects of the case reveal that the respondent no. 1 had filed a suit under Section 87 of the C.N.T. Act being Suit No. 2957 of 2007 for correction of records of right with respect to Mouza Saraidhela, Khata No. 861/72, Kesra – 142/ 2100, 2101 comprising an area of 14 decimals recorded in the name of the petitioner and for deleting the name of the petitioner by inserting the name of respondent

¶10

-2-

¶11

no. 1. The said suit was decided ex parte. The petitioner after a considerable length of time had come to know about the suit which was instituted by the respondent no. 1 and on enquiry he came to know that the respondent no. 1 had furnished the wrong address of the petitioner. No notice has ever been served upon the petitioner and even in the paper publication the appropriate address of the petitioner was not mentioned. The other ground which has been taken by the petitioner is with respect to his illness for which a medical certificate was submitted which indicates that the petitioner was suffering from chest pain from 20.03.2011. However, the said medical certificate has been disbelieved and rightly so by the learned court below on account of the fact that the same was not supported by any document which shows the detailed diagnosis and the treatment given to the petitioner.

¶12

However, so far as the plea which has been taken by the petitioner of he being unaware about the suit instituted by the respondent no. 1 is concerned, the petitioner appears to have given a plausible explanation and the learned court below should not have construed the same in a rigid fashion as has been done in the order dated 24.01.2014. While considering the plea of limitation the learned court below should also have taken into consideration the fact that by virtue of the order passed in Suit No. 2957 of 2007 there has been an order for correction of the record of right which directly affects the petitioner.

¶13

It would thus appear that the petitioner has given a reasonable explanation with respect to the delay of 486 days in preferring the miscellaneous appeal before the learned Principal District Judge, Dhanbad. Accordingly, this writ application stands allowed and the impugned order dated 24.01.2014 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Dhanbad in Misc. Appeal No. 77 of 2011 is, hereby, quashed and set aside by condoning the delay in filing the appeal.

¶14

Learned Principal District Judge, Dhanbad is directed to expedite the disposal of Misc. Case No. 77 of 2011 after hearing the respective parties.

¶15

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

¶16

Umesh/-

Chhedilal Poddar v. Jadu Mahto

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chhedilal Poddar v. Jadu Mahto

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

Ragho Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary and Ors.

Jagdish Prasad Singh Vs Jharkhand State Housing Board

Baraik Manohar Singh Vs Yamuna Devi and Anr.

Raju Pandit Alias Raj Kumar Pandey Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Bijay Kumar Jaiswal Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Rita Mishra Vs the State of Jharkhand through Secretary Housing and Urban Development Department and Ors.