Allowed¶23

Reena Devi v. Mithilesh Kumar

Jharkhand HC24 Jul 2024C.M.P./88/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay of 02 days in filing C.M.P. No. 88 of 2019 (I.A. No. 2096 of 2022 allowed) and restoration to its original file of First Appeal F.A. No. 114 of 2016, which had been dismissed for default/non-prosecution vide order dated 10.01.2019 of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi; restoration granted on satisfaction with cause-shown; decided 24.07.2024; petitioner Reena Devi, counsel J.N. Upadhyay.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 02 days in filing the C.M.P. condoned (I.A. No. 2096 of 2022 allowed) and F.A. No. 114 of 2016 restored to its original file ¶23

Reena Devi Vs Mithilesh Kumar — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

C.M.P. No. 88 of 2019

¶3

¶4

Reena Devi, d/o. Devanand Singh, w/o. Mithilesh Kumar, r/o. village Bajrangi Bagan, Laxmi Nagar, Road No. 1, Qr. No. 2, P.O. & P.S. Telco, District East Singhbhum.

¶5

……… Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mithilesh Kumar, s/o. Ramchandra Singh, resident of Chhota Govindpur, Subhash Nagar, P.O. Garda, P.S. Parsudih, Dist. East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur.

¶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. 2096 of 2022

¶14

06/ 24.07.2024 Instant interlocutory application has been filed for condoning the delay of 02 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 02 days in filing the Civil Miscellaneous Petition is hereby condoned.

¶17

I.A. No. 2096 of 2022 stands allowed.

¶18

C.M.P. No. 88 of 2019

¶19

Present C.M.P. has been filed for restoration of F.A. No. 114 of 2016 to its original file, which has been dismissed for default vide order dated 10.01.2019 passed by this Court.

¶20

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly submits that dismissal of said First Appeal due to non-prosecution 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. 114 of 2016 be restored to its original.

¶23

Accordingly, C.M.P. No. 88 of 2019 stands allowed.

¶24

(Navneet Kumar, J.)

¶25

Kunal

¶26

Reena Devi v. Mithilesh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reena Devi v. Mithilesh Kumar

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

Rajinder Kaur Vs Raj Singh

Arpita Ghosh Vs Sudhanshu Agnihotri

Choyo Chick Baraik Vs State of Jharkhand