Dismissed

Narayan Sao v. Pramod Kumar Missir

Jharkhand HC17 Jan 2020C.M.P./92/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Ranchi dismissed a restoration petition filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 5870 of 2012 arising from Eviction Suit No. 16 of 2011. The court held the petition was filed beyond the limitation period without condonation and rejected the prayer to withdraw the petition.

What did the court decide?

C.M.P. No. 92 of 2019 is dismissed and the prayer for withdrawal is rejected.

Narayan Sao Vs Pramod Kumar Missir — Execution and Attachment | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C. M. P. No. 92 of 2019

¶2

Narayan Sao, aged about 43 years, son of Amrit Sao, resident of Mohalla Okni No. 2, Sheopuri, PO and PS-Hazaribagh, District Hazaribagh ... ... Petitioner

¶3

Versus

¶4

Pramod Kumar Missir, son of late Nandan Missir, resident of Burhwa Mahadeo Mandir, PO and PS-Hazaribagh, District Hazaribagh ... ... Opposite Party

¶5

----------------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

¶6

For the Petitioner : Mr. Lalit Kr. Lal, Advocate For the opposite party : None

¶7

¶8

04/17.01.2020 This restoration petition has been filed by the petitioner on 14.02.2019 and it was registered on 15.02.2019.

¶9

By an order dated 06.09.2018, the writ petition bearing number W.P.(C) No. 5870 of 2012 filed by the petitioner was dismissed in default.

¶10

The petitioner has approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 5870 of 2012 challenging the order dated 07.05.2012 by which he has been debarred from filing written statement.

¶11

The order dated 06.09.2018 records that further proceeding in Eviction Suit No. 16 of 2011 was stayed vide order dated 06.02.2013.

¶12

By virtue of the order dated 06.09.2018, the interim order dated 06.02.2013 was vacated and now the trial in Eviction Suit No. 16 of 2011 has commenced.

¶13

Mr. Lalit Kr. Lal, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that now the plaintiff has started examining his witnesses and they have been cross-examined by the defendants.

¶14

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner has been debarred from filing his written statement, he has been deprived of an opportunity to lead evidence on his defence.

¶15

-2-

¶16

Under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC a defendant is required to file his written statement of defence within 30 days of service of summons upon him, however, this period can be extended by the court for the reasons to be recorded. But once it is found that the defendant who has been debarred from filing his written statement has cross-examined the plaintiff’s witnesses, he cannot be permitted to file his written statement.

¶17

Not only the petitioner on account of non-compliance of the provisions under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC has been debarred from filing his written statement in Eviction Suit No. 16 of 2011, in the present proceeding also he has not taken steps in the matter. On 07.03.2019 and 11.07.2019 when this restoration petition was listed before the learned Joint Registrar (Judl.) and the learned Registrar General, no one appeared for the petitioner.

¶18

Today this restoration petition has been listed upon a mentioning slip tendered by the learned counsel for the petitioner dated 10.01.2020.

¶19

This restoration petition has been filed beyond the period of limitation for filing the restoration application, that is, 30 days and there is no application for condonation of delay.

¶20

Having considered the aforesaid aspects of the matter, I am not inclined to entertain this restoration petition and, accordingly, C.M.P. No. 92 of 2019 is dismissed.

¶21

At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this restoration petition, however, I am not inclined and, accordingly, this prayer is rejected.

¶22

Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the court concerned through FAX.

¶23

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)

¶24

Tanuj/-

Narayan Sao v. Pramod Kumar Missir

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narayan Sao v. Pramod Kumar Missir

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

Om Prakash Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Shambhu Nath Singh Vs Guria Singh

Anjana Kumari And Anr. Vs Sanjay Suman

Kartar Singh Sardar Alias Kartal Singh Sardar Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Barik Ansari Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Ramesh Bhuian Alias Bhanjuwa Bhuiyan Alias Panda Vs the State of Jharkhand