Allowed

Santoshini Murmu v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC17 Jul 2019WPC/1441/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that admitting a civil miscellaneous case barred by limitation without first deciding the petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is an illegality. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the trial court to first determine the condonation of delay.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 28.11.2018 in Civil Misc. Case No.130 of 2018 is set aside, and the matter is remitted to the trial court to first deal with the petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Santoshini Murmu Vs the State of Jharkhand — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P (C) No. 1441 of 2019

¶3

Santoshini Murmu wife of Malin Hansda .…… Petitioner Versus

¶4

1.The State of Jharkhand. 2.Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad. 3.Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Dhanbad. 4.Circle Officer, Dhanbad …… Respondents

¶5

---------

¶6

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

¶7

---------- For the Petitioner : M/s Sudhir Kumar Sharma & Ramchander Sahu, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr. J.F Toppo, S.C (L & C)

¶8

-----------

¶9

4/Dated: 17^th July, 2019

¶10

This writ petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder the order dated 28.11.2018 passed in Civil Misc. Case No.130 of 2018 by which a petition for review of the judgment and decree passed Original Suit No.262 of 2016 has been filed by the judgment debtor-the State, who was defendant to the suit and respondent herein, by which the civil miscellaneous petitioner has been admitted even though the petition was barred by limitation for six months and to that effect petition under Section 5 to the Limitation Act for condoning the delay has been filed, but the court below has admitted the civil miscellaneous case without condoning the delay and issued notice.

¶11

Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Ramchander Sahu, has submitted that the court below has committed gross illegality in passing the said order without dealing with the application filed under section 5 to the Limitation Act and without condoning the delay admitted the miscellaneous case, therefore, the court has not dealt with Order XLI Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure, therefore, the said order suffer from gross illegality.

¶12

Mr. J.F. Toppo, S.C (L & C) appearing for the State respondent who is defendant to the suit and judgment debtor has fairly submitted relying upon the settled position of law that if a case is barred by limitation and when the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable then the suit must be filed supported with petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay and first the court should have considered delay part

¶13

before passing an order under section 5 of the Limitation Act but having not done so the matter needs consideration by the trial court.

¶14

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on appreciating the rival submissions the admitted fact in this case is that a original suit has been filed in which the petitioner being the decree holder wherein the decree has been passed against the State of Jharkhand, who has filed a petition for review of the said decree and judgment in Civil Misc. Case No.130 of 2018 but the said petition was barred by limitation about six months and the judgment debtor filed the said miscellaneous case along with petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act showing the reason for condoning the delay but the trial court has admitted the miscellaneous case without condoning the delay and directed to hear the matter at the time of final hearing and issued notice upon the decree holder.

¶15

The question has been raised by the decree holder that if any lis is barred by limitation, the requirement under law is that in case of applicability of the provision of Limitation Act, 1963, a petition under Section 5 to the Limitation Act, 1963 is to be filed, showing the sufficient cause for condoning the delay and if that would be made, it is incumbent upon the court to first deal with the petition filed under Section 5 to the Limitation Act and if satisfied with the reason shown therein and if the delay is condonable then the question of entering into the admission or hearing of the lis could arise. If this procedure would not be followed and if any decision would be taken the order would not be said proper, it is for the reason that limitation goes to the root of the issues and if the parties do not make an application within time it is incumbent upon the party to apprise the court what prevented him in not coming to the court within time.

¶16

The express provision which has been made under Order XLI Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure which stipulates that when an appeal presented after the expiry of the period of limitation specified, it shall be accompanied by an application supported by affidavit setting forth the facts on which the appellant relies to satisfy the Court that he has sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within such time.

¶17

In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the court below has committed illegality in admitting the civil miscellaneous case without condoning the delay, therefore, the same is not sustainable in the eye

¶18

of law. Consequently, thereof the order dated 28.11.2018 passed in Civil Misc. Case No.130 of 2018 is set aside and the matter is remitted before the trial court to pass a fresh order dealing first with the petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in accordance with law and without being prejudiced by this order and proceed further.

¶19

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and disposed of in terms of the direction as aforesaid.

¶20

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶21

Saket/-

Santoshini Murmu v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santoshini Murmu v. the State of Jharkhand

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

Ms Chandra Construction Through Its Proprietor Kameshwar Prasad Yadav Vs The Union Of India Through Ministry Of Road Transport Andhighways And Ors.

Safiran Bibi Alias Sabiran Bibi And Anr. Vs Land Reforms And Revenue Department

Dil Mohammad Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Rameshwar Thakur And Ors. Vs Land Reforms And Revenue Department

Rbc Skb Unifour through Its Authorized Signatory Shoaib Anwar Vs Central Coalfield Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Safaul Rahman Vs Mohammad Khalil