Disposed¶19

Chetlal Gope v. the State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner

Jharkhand HC19 Sept 2025C.M.P./3/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chetlal Gope v. State of Jharkhand & Rajendra Prasad Yadav; High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi; C.M.P. No.3 of 2024; order dated 19-09-2025 by Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.; restoration of M.A. No.550 of 2019 dismissed for non-compliance of order dated 17.01.2023; conditional restoration subject to cost of Rs.5,000/- to opposite party no.2 within four weeks; proof-of-payment condition; petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Conditional restoration of M.A. No.550 of 2019 to its original file at the same stage, subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- as cost to opposite party no.2 within four weeks; listing thereafter only upon proof of payment, failing which the M.A. remains dismissed. ¶19

Chetlal Gope Vs the State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

( 2025:JHHC:29104 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No.3 of 2024

¶2

Chetlal Gope aged about 62 years, son of Late Rupen Gope, resident of village-Coaldiha Mohalla, P.O.-Giridih, P.S.-Giridih Town, District-Giridih.

¶3

… Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner, Giridih office at Lellutunti Building, P.O. + P.S.-Giridih, Dist.-Giridih.

¶6

Rajendra Prasad Yadav, son of Late Ram Lal Yadav, Resident of village-Coaldiha Mohalla, P.O.-Girdih, P.S.-Giridih Town, District-Giridih.

¶7

… Opposite Parties ------

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶9

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Mithilesh Singh, GA-IV : Mr. Bhanu Pratap, AC to GA-IV For the OP 2 : Mr. Deepak Kr. Singh, Advocate

¶10

------

¶11

Order No:-06 Dated:-19-09-2025

¶12

Heard the parties.

¶13

This civil miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer for restoration of M.A. No.550 of 2019 to its original file which stood dismissed for non-compliance of the order dated 17.01.2023.

¶14

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that M.A. No.550 of 2019 stood dismissed for non-compliance of the order dated 17.01.2023. It is next submitted that due to unavoidable circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner could not remove the defects within the stipulated time; which resulted in dismissal of the said M.A. No.550 of 2019 for non-compliance of the order dated 17.01.2023 . It is next submitted that non-compliance of the said order dated 17.01.2023 was neither deliberate nor intentional. It is also submitted that the petitioner has very good grounds to agitate in the said M.A. No.550 of 2019 and unless the same is restored to its original file, the petitioner will be highly prejudiced. Hence, it is submitted that the M.A. No.550 of 2019 be restored to its original file.

¶15

Learned counsel appearing for the State has not raised any serious objection.

¶16

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner for restoration of the said M.A. No.550 of 2019 and submits that the opposite party no.2 will unnecessarily be harassed if the same is restored to its original file, hence, the opposite party no.2 be compensated adequately, in terms of cost.

¶17

Considering the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, M.A. No.550 of 2019 is directed to be restored to its original file, at the same stage at which it was before its dismissal, subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- by the petitioner to the opposite party no.2 through his counsel appearing in the record, within four weeks from the date of this order.

¶18

Registry is directed to list M.A. No.550 of 2019 before the concerned Bench after four weeks only if the petitioner files the proof of payment of the cost of Rs.5,000/- to the opposite party No.2 through his counsel appearing in the record within four weeks from the date of this order failing which this conditional order shall not be given effect to and M.A. No.550 of 2019 shall remain dismissed.

¶19

This civil miscellaneous petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶20

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶21

19/09/2025 Abhiraj/

Chetlal Gope v. the State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chetlal Gope v. the State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner

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

Bablu Batra Alias Jagjit Batra Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Shri Gopi Krishna Chaubey Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shashi Kumar Mishra Alias Shashi Mishra Vs the State of Jharkhand

Farzana Parween Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vineeta Agarwal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ramdeo Vishwakarma Vs the State of Jharkhand