Dismissed

Santosh Vikral v. the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Jharkhand HC2 Mar 2021WPC/6631/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge disposed of a writ petition filed under Article 227 concerning dismissal of a restoration application. The petitioner sought to withdraw the petition with liberty to seek alternative remedies while curing a court fee defect within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to search for alternative remedies; two-week extension to deposit deficit court fee of Rs. 230/-

Santosh Vikral Vs the State of Jharkhand… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P. (C) No. 6631 of 2013

¶3

Santosh Vikral, S/o Shayama Prasad, R/o Housing Colony, P.O & P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad

¶4

…… Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

1The State of Jharkhand

¶7

2.The Magma Leasing Limited, Finance through its Authorize signatory having principal office at Magma House, 24, Park Street, Kolkata 700016;

¶8

3.The Branch Manager, Magma Leasing Limited, Bokaro Branch, H.B. 6, Sector 4, City Centre, P.O & P.S. Sector 4, Bokaro Steel City, District Bokaro.

¶9

…… Respondents

¶10

------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD ------For the Petitioner : Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : ----

¶11

¶12

05 / Dated 2^nd March, 2021

¶13

The matter has been taken up through video conferencing.

¶14

The instant writ petition has been listed under the heading for “Orders (with defect)”.

¶15

Mr. Lukesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset has submitted that so far as defect no. 1, which pertains to payment of Court Fee of Rs. 230/-, is concerned it would be removed within a period of two weeks. So far other defects are concerned, prayer has been made on behalf of petitioner to ignore the same.

¶16

This Court, after taking into consideration the nature of defects, save and except defect no. 1, deem it fit and proper to ignore the same.

¶17

However, defect no. 2, as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the same shall be removed within a period of two weeks, is directed to be removed within the period of two weeks.

¶18

The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 28.01.2013 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 15 of 2012 whereby and whereunder petition filed under Order IX Rule 4 read with section 151 of the C.P.C for restoration of Misc. Case No. 21/2006, which was dismissed for default, has been dismissed.

¶19

The petitioner had filed an application for restoration against the order passed by the trial Court, which has been rejected holding it not maintainable since appeal will not lie against the order passed under Order IX Rule 4 of the C.P.C., as would be evident from impugned order.

¶20

After some argument, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to search out the remedy for redressal of the grievance of the writ petitioner.

¶21

In view of such submission, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the writ petitioner to

¶22

search out remedy for redressal of the grievance of the writ petitioner.

¶23

It is made clear that this order is subject to removal of defect, pertaining to deposit of deficit court fee of Rs. 230,

¶24

as pointed out by the office.

¶25

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶26

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶27

Alankar/-

Santosh Vikral v. the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Vikral v. the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

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

Umesh Nath Tiwari Vs Chief Secretory

Naresh Sharma Vs Collectariate

Paikash Pariyantas Lakra Vs Smt Kanak Rashi Lakra

G M I T I through Its One of Its Director Binay Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jagdish Sharma and Anr. Vs the State of Jharkhand through Circle Officer Sadar Chaibasa and Anr.

Reshma Parween Vs the State of Bihar through Its Chief Secretary and Ors.