Shahnaz Begum Vs Mir Manjur Hussain

3. Tara Khatoon @ Bhugli, both D/o Late Mir Abdul Gaffur, R/o Hazaribag Road, Near Plaza Cinema, Tharpakhna, P.O. & P.S. Lalpur, District Ranchi. … Opp. Parties

¶16

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI

¶17

------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Ashish Kr. Thakur, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Ms. Niteshwari Kumari, Advocate ---------

¶18

Order No.08/ Dated 22^nd July, 2025

¶19

I.A. No. 5392 of 2020

¶20

1. The instant Interlocutory Application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 1626 days in preferring the present petition.

¶21

2. Learned counsel for the applicants/petitioners submitted that there is communication gap between erstwhile counsel of applicants and the applicants on account of which applicants were not aware about the

¶22

2025:JHHC:20037

¶23

dismissal of M.A. No.70 of 2004 on 01.09.2015 as their counsel was not present before the Hon’ble Court on that day.

¶24

3. He further submitted that in the month of March, 2020, applicants came across the fact of dismissal of present appeal and he approached the present counsel and after arranging money for legal expenses as well as when restriction of lockdown on account of Pandemic COVID-19 got a bit relaxed, the applicants filed restoration application (C.M.P. No. 384 of 2020) in the month of September, 2020.

¶25

4. He further submitted that delay is neither intentional nor deliberate one on behalf of the petitioners/applicants.

¶26

5. Upon aforesaid premise, prayer has been made to condone the delay of 1626 days in preferring the present petition for restoration (C.M.P.).

¶27

6. Considering the submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicants, the delay of 1626 days caused in preferring this restoration petition is, hereby, condoned and I.A. No. 5392 of 2020 is allowed.

¶28

C.M.P. No. 384 of 2020

¶29

7. The instant petition has been preferred for the restoration of M.A. No. 70 of 2004 to its original file and number which was dismissed for default vide order dated 01.09.2015.

¶30

8. Submission has been made on behalf of the petitioners that during the pendency of aforesaid appeal, the appellants/petitioners enquired with the erstwhile conducting counsel about listing and outcome of the instant case on number of occasions and they were assured by his erstwhile counsel that the above-mentioned appeal would be listed before the Hon’ble Court for its hearing and adjudication. But, in the month of March, 2020, appellants/petitioners came to know about the factum of dismissal of instant appeal vide order dated 01.09.2015 when he came to meet his erstwhile counsel.

¶31

¶32

2025:JHHC:20037

¶33

9. It is further submitted that the absence of erstwhile counsel of appellants/petitioners before the Hon’ble Court on 01.09.2015 is neither intentional nor deliberate one, but it was on account of the fact that he had not noticed that matter was listed on that day.

¶34

10. Lastly, submission has been made that there is merit in the appeal and matter ought to be heard on merit.

¶35

11. Upon aforesaid premise, prayer for restoration of M.A. No. 70 of 2004 has been made.

¶36

12. Ms. Niteshwari Kumari, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the Opposite Parties is having no objection to the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners.

¶37

13. In these circumstances, prayer for restoration of M.A. No. 70 of 2004 is allowed.

¶38

14. Accordingly, C.M.P. No. 384 of 2020 is, hereby, allowed and M.A. No. 70 of 2004 is restored to its original file and number.

¶39

15. Let M.A. No. 70 of 2004 be listed under the appropriate Bench as per the Roster.

¶40

(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)

¶41

Suman/-

¶42