Disposed¶15

The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Human Resources Development Department v. Sobhnath Sahu

Jharkhand HC22 Jan 2024C.M.P./110/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delay condonation; 31 days' delay; I.A. No. 1849 of 2021; no delay and laches; restoration of appeal dismissed for default; peremptory order dated 16.12.2019; L.P.A. No. 27 of 2019; bona fide mistake; caveat filed 17.03.2021; correction of order dated 17.01.2024; High Court of Jharkhand; State of Jharkhand v. Sobhnath Sahu; C.M.P. No. 110 of 2021.

What did the court decide?

I.A. No. 1849 of 2021 allowed and disposed of (delay of 31 days condoned); C.M.P. No. 110 of 2021 disposed of with L.P.A. No. 27 of 2019 restored to its original file; order dated 17.01.2024 modified to reflect Ms. Neha Bhardwaj in the daily cause list as counsel for the respondent; Office directed to verify and place the L.P.A. record along with the Caveat, if any. ¶15

The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Human Resources Development Department Vs Sobhnath Sahu — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the 31 days' delay in preferring C.M.P. No. 110 of 2021 ought to be condoned (I.A. No. 1849 of 2021). +1 more

¶1

Court's answer

The delay of 31 days in preferring the instant civil miscellaneous petition is condoned.

¶5

Ratio / Principle

No delay and laches stand committed by the petitioner in filing the civil miscellaneous petition, the 31-day delay having been sufficiently explained.

¶8

Key takeaways

On consideration of the reason assigned (bona fide inability to comply with the peremptory order dated 16.12.2019), L.P.A. No. 27 of 2019, earlier dismissed for default on 31.01.2022, is restored to its original file.ratio¶14
Corrective direction: the name of Ms. Neha Bhardwaj is to be reflected in the daily cause list as counsel for the respondent (rectifying the typographical error in para-5 of the order dated 17.01.2024), and the order dated 17.01.2024 is modified to that extent.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi — C.M.P. No. 110 of 2021, The State of Jharkhand & Others v. Sobhnath Sahu, Order No. 06 dated 22nd January, 2024, bench of Sujit Narayan Prasad and Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, JJ. I.A. No. 1849 of 2021 (delay condonation) allowed: the 31 days' delay in preferring the civil miscellaneous petition was condoned, the Court holding that the delay stood sufficiently explained and that no delay and laches were committed by the petitioner. Proceeding to merits with the consent of the parties, and taking note of counsel's submission that due to a bona fide mistake the peremptory order dated 16.12.2019 passed by the Co-ordinate Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 27 of 2019 could not be complied with, resulting in dismissal of the appeal for default on 31.01.2022, the Court restored L.P.A. No. 27 of 2019 to its original file and disposed of the C.M.P. Post-order directions: Office to verify and place the L.P.A. record along with the caveat said to have been filed on 17.03.2021 (copy not on record); the order dated 17.01.2024 modified/corrected so that Ms. Neha Bhardwaj appears in the daily cause list as counsel for the respondent, not the petitioner. No statute or precedent was cited; no quantum involved.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 110 of 2021

¶2

The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Human Resources Development Department & Others

¶3

….. Petitioners

¶4

Versus Sobhnath Sahu ….. Opp. Party

¶5

---------

¶6

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶7

-------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Anish Kumar Mishra, A.C. to Sr. S.C.-I. For the Opp. Party : Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, Advocate.

¶8

--------- Order No. 06/Dated: 22^nd January, 2024

¶9

I.A. No. 1849 of 2021

¶10

1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed for condoning the delay of 31 days in preferring the instant civil miscellaneous petition.

¶11

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

3. Considering the reason assigned therein, this Court is of the

¶13

view that the instant delay condonation application is fit to be allowed.

¶14

4. Accordingly, the delay of 31 days in preferring the instant civil miscellaneous petition is hereby condoned.

¶15

5. I.A. No. 1849 of 2021 stands allowed and disposed of.

¶16

C.M.P. No. 110 of 2021

¶17

6. Considering the issue decided by this Court regarding applicability of delay and laches construed to be an application said to be furnished for explaining the delay and laches.

¶18

7. The delay of 31 days has been shown therein in view of consideration of the reason assigned with a preview that it is not a case where the instant civil miscellaneous petition is to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches, since, 31 days’ delay has sufficiently been

¶19

explained.

¶20

-2-

¶21

8. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that there is no delay and laches said to be committed on behalf of the petitioner in filing the instant civil miscellaneous petition.

¶22

9. This Court, after coming to the aforesaid conclusion and is with the consent of the parties, has come to the issue on merit.

¶23

10. It appears from the order sheet that submission has been made by Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, learned counsel that one Caveat Application was filed in the appeal, hence on the basis of the said application, she has appeared and contesting this case.

¶24

11. Mr. Anish Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted by referring to the reason assigned in the instant civil miscellaneous petition that due to bona fide mistake, the peremptory order dated 16.12.2019 passed by the Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 27 of 2019 could not have been complied with, in consequence thereof, the Letters Patent Appeal has been dismissed for default on 31.01.2022.

¶25

12. The further submission has been made that the issue is not decided on merit. The appellant will suffer irreparable loss and injury and as such prayer has been made to allow the instant civil miscellaneous petition.

¶26

13. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent however objected to such prayer.

¶27

14. Considering the reason assigned, L.P.A. No. 27 of 2019 is restored to its original file.

¶28

15. In the result, the instant civil miscellaneous petition stands disposed of.

¶29

-3-

¶30

16. After dictating the order, it has been pointed out that although the reference of one Caveat Application said to be filed in the Letters Patent Appeal was made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, but the copy of the same is not available in the records of Letters Patent Appeal

¶31

17. Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that the said Caveat was filed on 17.03.2021.

¶32

18. Office is to verify and place the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeal along with Caveat, if any.

¶33

19. It has been pointed out that in para-5 of the order dated 17.01.2024, some typographical error to the effect that it has been referred therein that the name of Ms. Neha Bhardwaj has been directed to be reflected in the daily cause list as a counsel for the petitioner instead of counsel for the respondent.

¶34

20. Let the name of Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, learned counsel be reflected in the daily cause list for the respondent.

¶35

21. The order dated 17.01.2024 is modified to the extent as above.

¶36

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶37

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶38

Sunil/

The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Human Resources Development Department v. Sobhnath Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Human Resources Development Department v. Sobhnath Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Director Csir Cimfr (Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research) through Alok Sharma Vs Mayuresh Dash

Budheshwar Oraon and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar Now Jharkhand and Ors.

Arati Gupta Vs the State of Bihar Now Jharkhnd and Ors.

The Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Coal and Ors. Vs Smt Jayanti Choudhary and Ors.

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and Ors. Vs Ms Shanker Enterprises Represented through Proprietor Dinanath Prasad

Yakub Kerketta Vs the State of Jharkhand