Gorakhnath Pandey v. Bishndeo Pandey

Jharkhand HC14 Nov 2025C.M.P./136/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi; C.M.P. No. 136 of 2024; Gorakhnath Pandey v. Bishndeo Pandey, Shantosh Pandey, Sarvan Pandey, Kameshwar Pandey, State of Jharkhand, Additional Collector Palamau, LRDC Palamau; restoration of writ petition W.P.(C) No. 6692 of 2017 dismissed for non-prosecution; counsel absent as Advocate's Clerk failed to mark case in cause list; no objection by opposite parties; order dated 14.11.2025; Judge Anil Kumar Choudhary.

What did the court decide?

Restoration of W.P.(C) No. 6692 of 2017 to its original file to the stage at which it was before its dismissal; the writ petition to be listed under the appropriate heading after a week. ¶¶24

Gorakhnath Pandey Vs Bishndeo Pandey — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

( 2025:JHHC:34087 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

C.M.P. No. 136 of 2024

¶4

Gorakhnath Pandey, aged about 56 years, son of late Brahmdeo Pandey, resident of Village-Sholey, P.O.Gaharpathra, P.S.-Paton, Dist.-Palamu

¶5

… Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Bishndeo Pandey, son of Ram Payare Pandey

¶8

Shantosh Pandey

¶9

Sarvan Pandey, both sons of late Brahmdeo Pandey

¶10

Kameshwar Pandey, son of late Khankhnu Pandey All resident of Village-Soley, P.O.-Gaharpathra, P.S.-Paton, Dist.-Palamu

¶11

State of Jharkhand through Member Board of Revenue, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, Dist.-Ranchi

¶12

Additional Collector, Palamau, P.O. & P.S.-Daltonganj, Dist.-Palamau

¶13

Land Reforms Deputy Collector[LRDC], Palamau, P.O. & P.S.-Daltonganj, Dist.-Palamau

¶14

… Opposite Parties

¶15

------

¶16

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶17

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sudhansu Shekhar, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, SC IV : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, AC to SC IV : Mr. Sabyasanchi, AC to SC IV ------

¶18

Order No.06 Dated- 14.11.2025

¶19

Heard the parties.

¶20

This civil miscellaneous petition has been filed at the instance of the petitioner for restoration of W.P.(C) No. 6692 of 2017 to its original file.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that W.P.(C) No. 6692 of 2017 was dismissed for non-prosecution. It is next submitted that as the Advocate’s Clerk could not mark the case in the cause list hence, the counsel for the petitioner could not appear before this Court when the case was called out, resulting in dismissal of the said W.P.(C) No. 6692 of 2017. It is next submitted that the petitioner has very good grounds to agitate in W.P.(C) No. 6692 of 2017 and unless W.P.(C) No.

¶22

6692 of 2017 is restored to its original file, the petitioner will be highly prejudiced. Hence, it is submitted that W.P.(C) No. 6692 of 2017 be restored to its original file.

¶23

The learned counsel for the opposite parties has no serious objection for restoration of W.P.(C) No. 6692 of 2017 to its original file.

¶24

Considering the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, W.P.(C) No. 6692 of 2017 is restored to its original file to the stage at which, it was before its dismissal.

¶25

List W.P.(C) No. 6692 of 2017 under the appropriate heading after a week.

¶26

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶27

14.11.2025 Sonu/Gunjan-

Gorakhnath Pandey v. Bishndeo Pandey

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gorakhnath Pandey v. Bishndeo Pandey

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

Prithvi Raj Singh Deo Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vijay Ram Paswan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shivdutt Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Deepali Verma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rajeshwar Prasad Munshi Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Harbans Singh Malhotra Alias Harbans Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand