Ramdhani Yadav Vs Vasudeo Alias Vasudev Harjivan Pathak

[2025:JHHC:31389]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No.53 of 2020

Ramdhani Yadav, son of late Rameshwar Yadav aged about 70 years, resident of Near Railway Station, Manoharpur, P.O. and P.S. Manoharpur, District West Singhbhum

¶4

… Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Deven Pathak S/o Vasudeo @ Vasudev Harjivan Pathak

¶7

Devel Pathak S/o Vasudeo @ Vasudev Harjivan Pathak Both sons of Vasudeo @ Vasudev Harjivan Pathak resident of village Sonua, P.O. and P.S. Sonua, District West Singhbhum.

¶8

… Opposite Parties

¶9

------

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶11

------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Nath Upadhyay, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Ms. Swati Singh, Advocate Mr. Rakesh Kr. Singh, Advocate Mr. Rahul Kr. Gupta, Advocate Mr. Shubham Kumar, Advocate

¶12

------

¶13

Order No:-07 Dated:-10-10-2025

¶14

I.A. No.1917 of 2021

¶15

Heard the parties.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this interlocutory application has been filed with a prayer to condone the delay of 657 days in filing the instant C.M.P. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner lives in a remote area. It is then submitted that due to miscommunication, the order of the Hon’ble Court could not be communicated to the petitioner and he was ignorant about the dismissal of S.A. No.322 of 2003; for readmission of which second appeal, this C.M.P. has been filed. It is then submitted that the delay caused in filing the instant C.M.P. is neither deliberate nor intentional. It is then submitted that the petitioner has very good grounds to agitate in the Second Appeal No.322 of 2003 and unless the delay in filing the instant C.M.P. is condoned, the petitioner will be highly prejudiced. Hence, it is submitted that the delay of 657 days in filing the instant C.M.P., be condoned.

¶17

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay of 657 days in filing the instant C.M.P. is condoned subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- by the petitioner to the opposite parties through their counsel appearing in the record within two weeks from the date of this order; failing which, this conditional order shall not be given effect to and this C.M.P. shall stand dismissed being barred by limitation.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner pays the cost of Rs.5,000/- to the opposite parties through their counsel appearing in the record and the learned counsel for the opposite parties acknowledges that the receipt of the cost of Rs.5,000/-.

¶19

This interlocutory application is allowed accordingly.

¶20

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶21

C.M.P. No.53 of 2020

¶22

Heard the parties.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this C.M.P. has been filed with the prayer to readmit the S.A. No.322 of 2003 to its original file which stood dismissed because of non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 08.03.2018 passed in S.A. No.322 of 2003 by which time was allowed to the appellant subject to payment of cost of Rs.1,000/- to the respondents. It is next submitted that due to miscommunication, the petitioner was ignorant about the peremptory order of this Court to pay the said cost to the respondents. It is then submitted that the petitioner lives in a remote area. It is then submitted that the petitioner is a poor person. It is also submitted that the petitioner has already paid the said cost of Rs.1,000/- to the learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties. The learned counsel for the opposite parties acknowledges the receipt of payment of cost of Rs.1,000/- from the petitioner. It is next submitted that non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 08.03.2018 was neither deliberate nor intentional. It is further submitted that the petitioner has very good grounds to agitate in the said S.A. No.322 of 2003 and unless the same is readmitted to its original file, the petitioner will be highly prejudiced. Hence, it is submitted that the S.A. No.322 of 2003 be readmitted to its original file.

¶24

Learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties submits that the petitioner is deliberately delaying the disposal of the second appeal. It is next

¶25

submitted that the opposite parties will unnecessarily be harassed if the same is readmitted to its original file, hence, the opposite parties be compensated adequately.

¶26

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case as well as the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, S.A. No.322 of 2003 is directed to be readmitted to its original file at the same stage at which it was before its dismissal subject to payment of cost of Rs.2,000/- by the petitioner to the opposite parties through their counsel appearing in the record within two weeks from the date of this order; failing which, this conditional order shall not be given effect to and this second appeal shall stand dismissed.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner has paid the payment of cost of Rs.2,000/- to the learned counsel for the opposite parties appearing in the record and learned counsel for the opposite parties acknowledged the receipt of the same.

¶28

Accordingly, the prayer to readmit S.A. No.322 of 2003 is allowed.

¶29

The Registry is directed to list S.A. No.322 of 2003 to its original file and to list it before the appropriate Bench after a week.

¶30

This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶31

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶32

Dated:-10.10.2025 Saroj/

Ramdhani Yadav v. Vasudeo Alias Vasudev Harjivan Pathak

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramdhani Yadav v. Vasudeo Alias Vasudev Harjivan Pathak

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

Birender Pandit Vs the State of Jharkhand

Chanchal Chatterjee Vs State of Jharkhand

Shankar Gope Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kunal Sarangi Vs State of Jharkhand

Rajesh Sinha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kiran Lakra Alias Kiran Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand