Allowed¶26

Central Coalfiels Limited through Its C M D v. Biru Karmali

Jharkhand HC1 Aug 2025C.M.P./105/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Restoration of first appeal dismissed for non-prosecution; condonation of 80-day delay in filing restoration petition (I.A. No. 4723 of 2021 allowed); peremptory order dated 26.09.2019; appeal rejected on 24.10.2019; first appeal held to be continuation of trial and not decided on merit; C.M.P. allowed; High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi; Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.; petitioner C.M.D., CCL, Ranchi (T.N.B Rao); respondents Biru, Jagarnath and Rajkumar Karmali and Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of the 80-day delay in filing the C.M.P.; I.A. No. 4723 of 2021 allowed and disposed of; First Appeal No. 21 of 2008 restored to its original file. ¶26

Central Coalfiels Limited through Its C M D Vs Biru Karmali — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

( 2025:JHHC:21377 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 105 of 2020

¶3

C.M.D., CCL, Darbhanga House, Ranchi through its General Manager (L&R) T.N.B Rao, son of T. Subbaiah, resident of Jawahar Nagar Colony, Kanke Road, P.O. Kanke, P.S. Gonda, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand)

¶4

…..Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Biru Karmali

¶7

Jagarnath Karmali

¶8

Rajkumar Karmali

¶9

All sons of late Bishwa Karmali, resident of village Murpa, P.O. Mandu, P.S. Mandu, District-Hazaribagh (Jharkhand)

¶10

Deputy Commissioner, P.O., P.s. and District-Hazaribagh

¶11

.…… Opp. Parties

¶12

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶13

For the Petitioner : Mr. Kanishk Deo, Advocate For the O.P. No.-4:- Mr. Rahul Kamlesh A.C. to S.C.-IV For the Resp. Nos. 1 to 3: Mr. Jaiprakash Pandey, Advocate

¶14

04/Dated: 01/08/2025

¶15

Pursuant to notice Mr. Jaiprakash Pandey, learned counsel has

¶16

appeared on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Rahul Kamlesh, learned counsel has appeared on behalf of respondent no.4.

¶17

This petition has been filed for restoration of First Appeal No. 21 of 2008 to its original file which stood rejected on 24.10.2019 for non compliance of order dated 26.09.2019.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is delay of 80 days in filing the C.M.P for that I.A. No. 4723 of 2021 has been filed for condoning the delay. He submits that first appeal was dismissed for non compliance of peremptory order. He submits that defect was not removed within time as the advocate clerk was re-occupied in his house with certain exigency. He submits that it was out of mind of the office and when memo of rejection of the appeal has been served then steps have been taken in view of that delay of 80 days in filing the restoration petition

¶19

¶20

( 2025:JHHC:21377 )

¶21

may kindly be condoned.

¶22

Learned counsel for the O.P. Nos. 1 to 3 opposes the prayer and submits that First Appeal is of the year, 2008 and the said appeal has been dismissed for non prosecution in the year 2019 and in view of that there is no merit in the C.M.P and I.A.

¶23

Considering that for non compliance of peremptory order first appeal was dismissed. The first appeal is continuation of the trial and the reasons have been disclosed in the I.A for condoning the delay and first appeal was not decided on merit. In view of above, the delay of 80 days in filing the C.M.P. is condoned.

¶24

I.A. No. 4723 of 2021 stands allowed and disposed of.

¶25

Further, since the first appeal was not decided on merit and only for non compliance of the peremptory order, the said appeal has been dismissed, the prayer made in C.M.P. is allowed. Accordingly, First Appeal No. 21 of 2008 is restored in its original file.

¶26

This C.M.P. is allowed and disposed of. Pending I.A, if any, stands disposed of. Pending I.A, if any, stands disposed of.

¶27

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶28

Satyarthi/-

¶29

Central Coalfiels Limited through Its C M D v. Biru Karmali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Central Coalfiels Limited through Its C M D v. Biru Karmali

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

Laldeo Oraon Vs Basudeo Oraon

Smt Sangeeta Devi Vs Manoj Kumar Sharma

M/S Rajhans Transport and Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. Patna, Represented Thr Its Dir Rajesh Kr Singh Vs Presiding Officer Labour Court Cum Commissioner

Arjun Kumar Vs the Central Bureau of Investigation

Prem Kumar Choudhary Vs the Central Bureau of Investigation

Alka Kumari Vs the Central Bureau of Investigation