Dismissed¶29

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

Jharkhand HC18 Jan 2024C.M.P./332/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Restoration of letter patent appeal dismissed in default; L.P.A. No. 224 of 2006; C.M.P. No. 332 of 2015; High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi; Order No.04 dated 18.01.2024; Sujit Narayan Prasad and Pradeep Kumar Srivastava JJ.; lack of due diligence in pursuing appeal; repeated adjournments and non-appearance of counsel; arguing counsel ill/unavailable; records not traced; appeal pending nine years; restoration application filed 11.09.2015 not prosecuted till 2024; civil miscellaneous petition dismissed; no costs or quantum awarded.

What did the court decide?

Despite several adjournments and opportunities between 2010 and 2015, there was no due diligence on the part of the appellant to pursue L.P.A. No. 224 of 2006, which had lain pending since 2006, and the Co-ordinate Bench accordingly dismissed the appeal in default. ¶27

Arati Gupta Vs the State of Bihar Now Jharkhnd and Ors. — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No.332 of 2015

¶2

Arati Gupta, wife of Late Subroto Kumar Gupta, resident of Village Pagmal, P.O. Hazaribagh, P.S. Hazaribagh, District Hazaribagh

¶3

…… Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Bihar (now State of Jharkhand)

¶6

The Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh, P.O.

¶7

& P.S. Hazaraibagh, Distrct, Hazaribagh

¶8

The Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, P.O. & P.S. Hazaribagh, District Hazaribagh

¶9

The Khas Mahal Officer, Hazaribagh, P.O. & P.S. Hazaribagh, District Hazaribagh

¶10

Shree Lata Gupta, daughter of Subrato Kumar Gupta,

¶11

Shrimati Sen, daughter of Late Subrato Kumar Gupta, wife of Deba Dutta Sen, resident of Great Eastern Royal, Bilasis Road, Tardeo, P.O. & P.S. Tardeo, District Mumbai 34 (Maharashtra)

¶12

……Opposite Parties

¶13

----------

¶14

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

¶15

-----

¶16

For the Petitioner : Mr. Birendra Kumar Gupta, Advocate For the State : Mr. Gaurang Jajodia, A.C. to G.P. II

¶17

Order No.04/ Dated:18.01.2024

¶18

1. The Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed for restoration of Letter Patent Appeal being L.P.A. No. 224 of 2006 which has been dismissed in default by order dated 17.08.2015 passed by the Coordinate Division Bench of this Court.

¶19

2. The aforesaid letter patent appeal was dismissed way back on 17.08.2015. The instant petition has been filed on 11.09.2015 but there is no endeavor on the part of the petitioner for listing of the case on early date by filing any application to that effect or even by making mention

¶20

motion for listing. The same is being referred hereinabove, in order to assess the conduct of the petitioner, since, the Co-ordinate Bench while dismissing the letter patent appeal has taken note the conduct of the learned counsel representing the petitioner.

¶21

3. It is evident that the Co-ordinate Bench for the purpose of dismissing the instant appeal for default, has considered the order dated 17^th September, 2010, on that date when the matter was called twice in two different round, but none for the appellant was appeared.

¶22

The Co-ordinate Bench has further referred that in order to give

¶23

one more chance to the appellant, the matter was adjourned.

¶24

4. On the next date of hearing, i.e. on 2^nd January, 2014, the same was the situation, still the Co-ordinate Division Bench has granted another chance to the appellant for cause appearance on 9^th of July, 2014.

¶25

5. The learned counsel Mr. Birendra Kumar, appeared for the appellant and sought adjournment stating that arguing counsel is ill. The matter, accordingly, adjourned and when taken up again on 20^th August, 2014, the appellant went un-represented, thereafter, on one occasion, the instant appeal could not be taken up by the Court. On 20^th January, 2015, again a request was made for an adjournment. When the matter was taken up thereafter, the learned counsel made request stating that the arguing counsel is not available and stood adjourned for 13^th May, 2015. On which date, however it could not be taken up as the Court time was over. When the matter was taken upon 19^th June, 2015 once again request was made by Mr. Birendra Kumar, counsel for the appellant stating that he was not able to trace the records of the instant appeal. The

¶26

matter again was adjourned. The Case was again listed on 17^th August, 2015 but again none represented the appellant, as such, the appeal was dismissed for default.

¶27

6. It is, thus evident that not on one or two or three occasions rather on several occasions the matter was adjourned and by keeping into consideration the fact that the appeal was of 2006 and lying pending since the last nine years but even then there is no due diligence to pursue the said letters patent appeal and hence, the Co-ordinate Bench took view to dismiss the case in default.

¶28

7. The instant restoration application has been in 2015 and we are now in the year 2024 but still there is not endeavor on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant to get this restoration application disposed of immediately after filing of appeal so as to substantiate the reason of irreparable loss if the appeal will not be restored.

¶29

8. Accordingly, and in view of the aforesaid reasons we are of the view that the instant Civil Miscellaneous Petition is hereby dismissed.

¶30

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶31

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶32

Rajnish/

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pintu Paswan Alias Sangam Paswan Alias Sarvesh Jee Alias Sudhansu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ramkeshwar Oraon Alias Ram Kishor Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Urmila Trivedi Vs the State of Jharkhand

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.

Bilendra Sahu Alias Birendra Sahu Alias Birendra Kumar Sahu Vs Sumitra Devi and Anr.