The High Court of Jharkhand held that the appellant failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for a delay of 653 days in filing the second appeal. Consequently, the limitation petition was rejected and the appeal was dismissed as hopelessly time-barred.
Limitation petition rejected; second appeal dismissed as hopelessly time-barred.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Sunil Kumar Pandey … … Appellant
CORAM : HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N. PATHAK
-----For the Appellant : Mr. Manjul Prasad, Sr. Advocate Mr. Rohitashya Roy, Advocate For the Respondents : M/s Saket Upadhyay, Prabhat Singh, & Rahul Kumar, Advocates
This Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 22.12.2014 and decree signed on 3.1.2015, passed by learned Principal District Judge, Dhanbad, dismissing the Title Appeal No. 71 of 2011 and upholding and affirming the judgment dated 25.7.2011 and decree signed on 4.8.2011, passed by the learned Munsif-II, Dhanbad, in Title (Partition) Suit No. 57 of 2007, whereby suit of plaintiff has been decreed on contest.
This second appeal has been filed by the defendantappellant after a delay of 653 days, and for condoning the delay, I.A. No. 9277 of 2017 has been filed.
Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the delay in preferring the second appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate. Learned counsel submits that the plaintiff filed the suit for partition of the suit property by appointment of a survey knowing pleader commissioner. The defendant-appellant appeared in the suit and submitted that since there has already been a mutual partition, in terms of which, the plaintiff constructed her house, therefore, there is no unity of title and possession between the parties. Learned senior counsel further submits that after the judgment and decree was passed by the learned appellate court, the appellant sought advice from the conducting counsel of title appeal. Thereafter, the
2
appellant was under the impression that judgment and decree was only a formal demarcation which will not disturb the existing possession of the parties and there is no requirement of preferring any appeal. But, in the meantime, final decree was executed and on 22.11.2016, an order was passed in Execution case for calling the police force to execute the decree passed in final decree proceeding. Thereafter, again the appellant took legal advice from the learned advocate at Ranchi and after arranging all sources, this second appeal has been filed before this Court. Hence, the appellant was prevented from sufficient cause in preferring the appeal in time.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that only ground of taking legal advice has been taken by the appellant in the entire limitation petition and no sufficient cause has been shown and hence, the same is fit to be dismissed.
I have gone through the impugned judgments and also the limitation petition. Neither there is any merit in this appeal nor sufficient cause has been made out for condonation of delay. Moreover, there is concurrent findings of both the Courts below and I find that there is no illegality or any infirmity in the orders / judgments passed by the learned Courts below.
Therefore, the limitation petition is rejected. Consequently, this appeal is also dismissed, being hopelessly time barred.
(Dr. S. N. Pathak, J.)
R.Kr.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether sufficient cause was made out to condone a delay of 653 days in filing the second appeal.
Sunil Kumar Pandey
Narendra Pandey
Sumit Kumar Pandey
Priyanka Pandey
S.N. PATHAK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
