Disposed¶30

Mahabir Swarnkar v. Prabha Devi

Jharkhand HC1 Aug 2025C.M.P./489/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

restoration of second appeal; dismissal for non-compliance of peremptory order; proof of deposit Rs.4,000/- JHALSA; conditional restoration subject to cost Rs.9,000/-; compensation to opposite parties; six-week deadline; C.M.P. No.489 of 2025; Second Appeal No.33 of 2011; High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi; Anil Kumar Choudhary; order dated 01-08-2025

What did the court decide?

Conditional restoration of Second Appeal No.33 of 2011 to its original file at the same stage, subject to payment of cost of Rs.9,000/- by the petitioners to the opposite party Nos.1 to 9 through their counsel within six weeks; failing payment of the cost, the conditional order shall not take effect and the Second Appeal shall remain dismissed. ¶30

Mahabir Swarnkar Vs Prabha Devi — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether Second Appeal No.33 of 2011, which stood dismissed for non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 18.12.2024 requiring proof of deposit of Rs.4,000/- with JHALSA, should be restored to its original file.

¶27

Court's answer

Second Appeal No.33 of 2011 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.9,000/- by the petitioners to the opposite party Nos.1 to 9 through their counsel within six weeks from the date of the order.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

The restoration is conditional: the Registry is directed to list Second Appeal No.33 of 2011 before the concerned Bench after six weeks only if the petitioners file proof of payment of the cost of Rs.9,000/- to the opposite party Nos.1 to 9 within six weeks; failing which the conditional order shall not be given effect to and the Second Appeal shall remain dismissed.

¶32

Key takeaways

This civil miscellaneous petition is disposed of accordingly.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

C.M.P. No.489 of 2025 (High Court of Jharkhand, Anil Kumar Choudhary, J., order dated 01-08-2025): Petitioners sought restoration of Second Appeal No.33 of 2011, which stood dismissed for non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 18.12.2024 requiring filing of proof of deposit of Rs.4,000/- with JHALSA; the deposit had in fact been made on 23.01.2025. Opposite party Nos.1 to 9 opposed restoration and sought adequate compensation. Court restored the Second Appeal to its original file at the same stage, subject to payment of Rs.9,000/- cost to opposite party Nos.1 to 9 through their counsel within six weeks; Registry to relist only on proof of such payment, failing which the conditional order shall not take effect and the appeal shall remain dismissed. Petition disposed of accordingly.

¶1

[2025:JHHC:21374] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No.489 of 2025

¶2

Mahabir Swarnkar aged about 69 years

¶3

Lakhan Swarnkar aged about 53 years

¶4

Sanjay Swarnkar aged about 40 years

¶5

All sons of Late Hari Charan Swarnkar, residents of Village Atka Chatti, P.O. Atka Chhati, P.S. Bagodar, District Giridih (Jharkhand) … Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

Prabha Devi wife of Late Basudeo Naiyak, resident of Village Atka Chatti, P.S. Atka Chatti, P.S. Bagodar, District Giridih

¶8

Jalebi Naiyak

¶9

Doman Naiyak

¶10

Sita Ram Naiyak

¶11

All sons of Bhuneshwar Naiyak

¶12

Naresh Naiyak

¶13

Ashok Naiyak

¶14

Nos.5 and 6 are sons of Late Tulsi Nayak

¶15

Mosomat Kanti Devi wife of Late Tulsi Nayak

¶16

Lafra Nayak

¶17

Prakash Nayak

¶18

Nos.8 and 9 are sons of Gajo Nayak @ Dhanu Nayak

¶19

Most. Nemia wife of Late Bhikhari Nayak

¶20

Bijay Kumar minor son of Late Bhikhari Nayak, being represented his mother, natural guardian and next friend, Most. Nemia, Respondent No.10 whose interest is not adverse to that of her minor son.

¶21

Ram Chandra Nayak son of Gomal Nayak

¶22

All residents of Village Atka Chatti, P.O. Akta Chatti, P.S. … Bagodar, District Giridih (Jharkhand) Opposite Parties

¶23

-----CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶24

For the Petitioners : Mr. Kundan Kr. Ambastha, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Sushil Kr. Verma, Advocate Mr. Arvind Prakash Malakar, Advocate ------

¶25

Order No:-03 Dated:-01-08-2025

¶26

Heard the parties.

¶27

This civil miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer for restoration of Second Appeal No.33 of 2011 to its original file which stood dismissed for non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 18.12.2024 passed by this Court.

¶28

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Second Appeal No.33 of 2011 stood dismissed for non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 18.12.2024 passed by this Court to file the proof of deposit of Rs.4,000/- by the petitioners of this case with the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority (JHALSA). It is next submitted that due to negligence and bonafide mistake, the proof of the said deposit could not be filed with the stipulated time which resulted in dismissal of the said Second Appeal No.33 of 2011. It is next submitted that non-compliance of the said order dated 18.12.2024 within the stipulated time was neither deliberate nor intentional. It is further submitted that the petitioners have already made the said deposit on 23.01.2025 and filed the proof the same. It is also submitted that the petitioners have very good grounds to agitate in the said Second Appeal No.33 of 2011 and unless the same is restored to its original file, the petitioners will be highly prejudiced. Hence, it is submitted that the Second Appeal No.33 of 2011 be restored to its original file.

¶29

Learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.1 to 9 vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioners for restoration of the said Second Appeal No.33 of 2011 and submits that the opposite party Nos.1 to 9 will unnecessarily be harassed if the same is restored to its original file, hence, the opposite party Nos.1 to 9 be compensated adequately.

¶30

Considering the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, Second Appeal No.33 of 2011 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.9,000/- by the petitioners to the opposite party Nos.1 to 9

¶31

through their counsel appearing in the record within six weeks from the date of this order.

¶32

Registry is directed to list Second Appeal No.33 of 2011 before the concerned Bench after six weeks only if the petitioners file the proof of payment of the cost of Rs.9,000/- to the opposite party Nos.1 to 9 though their counsel appearing in the record within six weeks from the date of this order failing which this conditional order shall not be given effect to and Second Appeal No.33 of 2011 shall remain dismissed.

¶33

This civil miscellaneous petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶34

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶35

Animesh/

Mahabir Swarnkar v. Prabha Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahabir Swarnkar v. Prabha Devi

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

Suresh Prasad Rajak Vs Commissioner,Santhal Pargana

Divisional Railway Manager Eastern Railway Vs Khagen Gope

Tulsi Sahu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dr Gulam Rabbani Vs Jharkhand Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Council through Its Examination Controller

Balai Babu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rahul Raja Vs State of Jharkhand