Allowed

Priti Kumari Sinha Alias Prity Kumari Sinha v. Sudhir Kumar Sinha

Jharkhand HC11 Mar 2024C.M.P./98/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order disposed of a Civil Miscellaneous Petition seeking restoration of a First Appeal dismissed for default. The High Court, after completing substituted service of notice on the absent respondent, allowed the petition and restored the First Appeal, subject to removal of defects within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and the First Appeal No. 243 of 2018 is restored, subject to removal of defects within two weeks.

Priti Kumari Sinha Alias Prity Kumari Sinha… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 98 of 2019

¶2

Priti Kumari Sinha @ Prity Kumari Sinha

¶3

...… Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

Sudhir Kumar Sinha …. ... Opposite Party

¶6

-----

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI

¶8

For the Petitioner : Mr. Anand Kr. Sinha, Advocate Mr. Manoj Kr. Ram, Advocate For the Opp. Party :

¶9

Order No.09/ Dated: 11.03.2024

¶10

The instant Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed for restoration of First Appeal being F.A. No. 243 of 2018 which was dismissed for default for non-compliance of peremptory order dated 17.12.2018.

¶11

The notice was issued to the sole respondent, husband, Sudhir Kumar Sinha. The respondent concerned since had not appeared after issuance of the notice under registered cover as well as ordinary process, since, both have been returned unserved with the postal remarks as “addressee moved hence return to sender” . The Court thereafter has passed the order on 15^th February 2024 taking recourse of the substituted service of notice. Steps have been taken by paper publication.

¶12

The supplementary affidavit has been filed appending therein the copy of the paper publication, published in the daily newspaper i.e. Prabhat Khabar of the Jamshedpur edition has also contents for the district of Jharsugura and Sambhalpur.

¶13

It has been contended that the sole respondent is now living at Rourkela, District- Sundergarh.

¶14

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that since the substituted service of notice has already been taken recourse of, therefore the service upon the sole respondent may be deem to be accepted.

¶15

Upon consideration of the aforesaid submissions we are of the view that the process for service of notice since is complete even by taking the substituted service of notice upon the sole respondent therefore the notice is being duly accepted said to be served upon the sole respondent.

¶16

Coming to the merit of the case it has been contended that due to

¶17

-2-

¶18

reason assigned in paragraph 5 of the petition, the defect could not have been removed in the peremptory time as was granted vide order dated 17.12.2018 and hence First Appeal to be restored so that the matter may be heard on merit.

¶19

It has been further contended that the appellant is intending to have the decree of divorce and hence she pursuance this matter and if the instant First Appeal will not be restored to its original file the appellant shall suffer irreparable loss in the matter.

¶20

After taking into consideration the aforesaid submission, we are of the view that First Appeal needs to be restored.

¶21

Accordingly, the instant Civil Miscellaneous Petition is hereby allowed.

¶22

In considering thereof, the First Appeal No. 243 of 2018, is restored, subject to the removal of the defects within two weeks.

¶23

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶24

(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)

¶25

Pramanik/

Priti Kumari Sinha Alias Prity Kumari Sinha v. Sudhir Kumar Sinha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Priti Kumari Sinha Alias Prity Kumari Sinha v. Sudhir Kumar Sinha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Jharkhand Vs Mr Man Mohan Prasad

Anand Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

The Commissioner of Income Tax Central Vs Ms Gahna

Biru Mehta Alias Biru Kumar Mehta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dr Rabindra Kumar Singh Alias Rabindra Kumar Singh Vs Commissioner of Income Tax Central and Anr.

Ajay Turi Vs Union of India through National Investigation Agency