This single judge bench dismissed a Civil Miscellaneous Petition seeking to quash an order rejecting a restoration petition for a Land Acquisition case. The court held that a medical certificate covering one month was insufficient to justify a 357-day delay exceeding the 30-day statutory limit.
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 AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 21 of 2022
Yasin Ansari .... .. ... Petitioner(s)
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi. 2.The Land Acquisition Officer, Ranchi.
.. ... ...Opp. Party(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shailendra Kr. Singh, Advocate For the Opp. Party(s)/State : Mr. Awanish Shekhar, AC to AAG-I
05/ 02.11.2022 . Heard the parties.
The instant C.M.P. has been filed for quashing the order dated 20.09.2019 passed by learned Sub Judge-II-cum- Land Acquisition Judge, Ranchi in L.A. Misc. Case No.03 of 2017 by which the learned court below has rejected the petition filed for restoration of L.A. Case No.08 of 2014 which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 17.11.2016 for not taking steps for issuance of summons against the Opp. Party.
It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that at the relevant time, the petitioner was seriously ill and for that reason, the restoration petition could not be filed within the stipulated time and in support of his illness, medical certificate was also filed before the learned court below.
It is further submitted that petitioner is an old person of about 65 years and was suffering from various ailments, as such, he was admitted from 15.07.2016 to 24.08.2016 at RIMS, Ranchi.
Mr. Awanish Shekhar, learned AC to AAG-I for the State has opposed the petition. It is submitted that the said Land Acquisition Case was filed in the year 2014 and was dismissed for default on 17.11.2016 for not taking steps for issuance of summons against the opposite party.
It is further submitted that there has been delay of about 357 days in filing the said restoration application whereas under Article 122 of the Limitation Act, the period of limitation for restoration is of 30 days.
It is settled law that under Order 9 R 4 of the CPC, it is necessary for the party to show that there was sufficient reasons preventing the party from appearing before the Court.
I do not find the medical ground for hospitalization for little more than one month was sufficient enough to condone the delay of 357 days in filing the restoration petition on grounds of chest pain and weakness. There is no infirmity in the impugned order.
Civil Miscellaneous petition stands dismissed.
Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J. )
Sandeep/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the medical certificate for one month of hospitalization is sufficient to condone a delay of 357 days in filing a restoration petition under Article 122 of the Limitation Act.
Whether the Sub Judge erred in rejecting the restoration petition in the Land Acquisition case.
Yasin Ansari
State of Jharkhand
Gautam Kumar Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
