Sudarshan Prakash Vs Tarun Anand

2025:JHHC:33875

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Civil Revision No. 11 of 2024

Sudarshan Prakash, aged about 73 years, Son of Late Inder Prakash Anand, R/o-Mohalla Nawatoli, P.O. & P.S.-Daltonganj, Dist.-Palamau

¶5

... ... Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Tarun Anand, S/o Late Manmohan Prakash, R/o-Mohallah Bewatikar, P.O. & P.S.-Daltonganj, Dist.-Palamau

¶8

Manjit Prakash, S/o Inder Prakash Anand, R/o-Mohalla Nawatoli, P.O. & P.S.-Daltonganj, Dist.-Palamau

¶9

Usha Chawla, W/o Late C.P. Chawla, R/o-15/1 West Patel Nagar, 1^st Floor, at P.O. & P.S.& Dist. – New Delhi-110008

¶10

Warsha Malhotra, W/o Late K.L. Malhotra, R/o-A-52, Pocket No. 1, Paschimpuriat P.O. & P.S. & Dist. New Delhi-110063

¶11

Nisha Marwah, W/o Anil Marhwah, R/o-Mohalla 11 Keshove Road, Laxman Chowk, Dehradun, at P.O. & P.S. & Dist.-Dehradun

¶12

… … Opp. Parties

¶13

¶14

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶15

¶16

For the Petitioner	: Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate
	Mr. Pankaj Verma, Advocate Mr. Vivek Ranjan, Advocate
For the Opp. Parties	: Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Diwakar Jha, Advocate --------

¶17

Order No. 10/ Dated: 12^th November, 2025

¶18

The office-note dated 07.11.2025 reveals that Opp. Parties have validly been served with notice. Therefore, the service of notice is deemed to be sufficient.

¶19

The instant revision has been filed with a prayer to set aside the order dated 03.02.2024 passed by the District Judge-I, Palamau at Daltonganj in Revocation Case No. 07/2022 whereby and whereunder petition filed under Order 9 Rule 4 read with section 151 CPC for restoration of Original Suit (Probate) No. 4 of 2016 to its original file and hearing the case on merits has been dismissed.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the original probate suit was pending at the stage of argument and due to unavoidable circumstances, the conducting advocate of the petitioner could not appear, at the time of hearing and the petitioner unfortunately had been involved in a criminal case vide Daltonganj Sadar (T) P.S. Case No. 246

¶21

2025:JHHC:33875

¶22

of 2015 registered under Section 323 & 504 of the IPC. Therefore, he could not appear on the date fixed for hearing argument and the case was dismissed for default vide order dated 24.11.2022. The learned court below has not considered the circumstances, which prevented the petitioner in prosecuting his case and has passed a penal order depriving the petitioner from the order passed on merits of the case. Therefore, the impugned order is fit to be set aside and the original probate suit is fit to be restored to its original number for its hearing.

¶23

On the other hand, learned counsel for the opp. parties has vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that there was deliberate and dishonest intention of the petitioner to cause delay in the hearing of the case by taking unwanted adjournments. The learned trial court has specifically mentioned in the impugned order, as to how, the petitioner was adopting dilatory tactics and in spite of sufficient opportunity given to the petitioner vide order dated 05.08.2022, 23.08.2022, 02.09.2022, 14.09.2022. 04.11.2022. 18.11.2022 and 23.11.2022, he avoided to argue the case and ultimately the Court was constrained to pass order of dismissal of the suit. The reason disclosed by the petitioner for not taking steps in the matter of hearing of the case are concocted story and rightly disbelieved by the learned court below. Therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order calling for any interference and this revision is fit to be dismissed.

¶24

I have gone through the impugned order in the light of the submissions raised on behalf of both the parties.

¶25

There is no doubt that the original probate suit No. 4 of 2016 was pending at the stage of argument since 05.08.2022, which could not be concluded either due to involvement in criminal case of the petitioner or death of his counsel’s son and other circumstances. Therefore, impugned order was passed dismissing the suit for default. There is no specific circumstance indicating the willful default on the part of the petitioner. Moreover, the case was running at the stage of argument, therefore,

¶26

2 C.R. No. 11 of 2024

¶27

2025:JHHC:33875

¶28

hearing the suit on merits and passing the order in accordance with law is demand of justice. Learned trial Court has not adhered the cause of justice, rather, penalized the petitioner for his default in not arguing the case. Therefore, impugned order is hereby set aside and this revision is allowed. The original probate suit No. 4 of 2016 is restored to its original number and the learned trial court is directed to hear the case on merits and pass appropriate order in accordance with law without granting any unnecessary adjournments to the either party. The petitioner is also directed to co-operate in the hearing of the case on merits without seeking unnecessary adjournments.

¶29

Pending, I.A.s if any, stand disposed of.

¶30

Let a copy of this be communicated to the concerned court for information and needful.

¶31

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶32

12.11.2025

¶33

Basant

¶34

3 C.R. No. 11 of 2024

Sudarshan Prakash v. Tarun Anand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudarshan Prakash v. Tarun Anand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dewan Chaubey Vs Jagdish Chaubey

In The Matter Of Sessions Trial No 203 Of 1995 Sardana Ghagra Alias Sardar Ghagra Vs

Naina Kumari Barman @ Naina Kumari Vs Subodh Kumar Soni

Mahabala Devi Vs Yogendra Mahto

Kumari Sarita Vs Anup Kumar Kushwaha

Sunil Kumar Verma Vs the State of Jharkhand