Allowed¶23

Rajinder Kaur v. Raj Singh

Jharkhand HC24 Jul 2024C.M.P./64/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delay condonation of 55 days allowed; restoration of dismissed First Appeal; F.A. No. 200 of 2019 restored to original file after dismissal on 04.11.2019 for non-compliance of preemptory order dated 15.10.2019; I.A. No. 5412 of 2021 and C.M.P. No. 64 of 2020 allowed; High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi; Rajinder Kaur @ Rajinder Kour v. Raj Singh; decision dated 24.07.2024.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of the delay of 55 days in filing C.M.P. No. 64 of 2020 (I.A. No. 5412 of 2021 allowed) and restoration of F.A. No. 200 of 2019 to its original file. ¶23

Rajinder Kaur Vs Raj Singh — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

C.M.P. No. 64 of 2020

¶3

¶4

Rajinder Kaur @ Rajinder Kour, w/o. Raj Singh, d/o Sulakhan, resident of House No. 81, Tata Line, Golmuri, P.O. Golmuri, P.S. Sidhgora, Dist. East Singhbhum.

¶5

……… Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Raj Singh, son of Baldeo Singh, Aulokh, resident of Rambandh Burnpur, P.O. & P.S. Burnpur, Dist. Asansol, West Bengal.

¶8

……… Opp. Party

¶9

¶10

CORAM : HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N. PATHAK HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR

¶11

For the Petitioner : Mr. J.N. Upadhyay, Advocate For the O.P. :

¶12

¶13

I.A. No. 5412 of 2021

¶14

04/ 24.07.2024 Instant interlocutory application has been filed for condoning the delay of 55 days in filing the Civil Miscellaneous Petition.

¶15

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the delay is neither deliberate nor intentional rather it happened due to compelling circumstances and if the delay is not condoned, the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injury.

¶16

In view of fair submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and having been satisfied with the grounds taken in the interlocutory application, the delay of 55 days in filing the Civil Miscellaneous Petition is hereby condoned.

¶17

I.A. No. 5412 of 2021 stands allowed.

¶18

C.M.P. No. 64 of 2020

¶19

Present C.M.P. has been filed for restoration of F.A. No. 200 of 2019 to its original file, which has been dismissed on 04.11.2019, due to non-compliance of the preemptory order dated 15.10.2019.

¶20

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly submits that dismissal of said First Appeal due to non-compliance of Court’s order dated 15.10.2019 was neither deliberate nor intentional and it happened due to compelling circumstances. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner has a good case on merit and if the instant First Appeal is not restored to its original file, the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injury and for the ends of justice, the instant C.M.P. may be allowed.

¶22

Having heard the submissions of the petitioner and on being satisfied with the cause-shown in the C.M.P., let F.A. No. 200 of 2019 be restored to its original.

¶23

Accordingly, C.M.P. No. 64 of 2020 stands allowed.

¶24

(Navneet Kumar, J.)

¶25

Kunal

¶26

Rajinder Kaur v. Raj Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajinder Kaur v. Raj Singh

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

Reena Devi Vs Mithilesh Kumar

Arpita Ghosh Vs Sudhanshu Agnihotri

Choyo Chick Baraik Vs State of Jharkhand