Dismissed¶25

Mahavir Gope v. Deepak Yadav

Jharkhand HC23 Jan 2025C.M.P./675/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Article 227 supervision over district court restoration orders; re-admission of appeal dismissed for default; Order XLI Rule 19 CPC; Section 151 CPC inherent powers; sufficient cause — counsel's diary error (12.02.2018 posted instead of 12.12.2017); cost Rs. 2500/-; Principal District Judge Hazaribag; Title Appeal No. 31 of 2013; Civil Miscellaneous Case No. 03 of 2018; C.M.P. No. 675 of 2024; Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi; decided 23.01.2025; no interference; appeal to proceed on merits without prejudice.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the petitioners; the restoration of Title Appeal No. 31 of 2013 was left undisturbed, with the direction that the appeal be decided on its own merits. ¶25

Mahavir Gope Vs Deepak Yadav — Writ and Judicial Review | Jharkhand HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the petitioners; the restoration of Title Appeal No. 31 of 2013 was left undisturbed, with the direction that the appeal be decided on its own merits.

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 24.04.2024 of the learned Principal District Judge, Hazaribag, allowing re-admission (restoration) of Title Appeal No. 31 of 2013 — earlier dismissed for default on 19.12.2017 — ought to be set aside under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶19

Court's answer

Sufficient cause for restoration was made out: the wrong date was posted in the diary (the correct dates of 12.12.2017, 14.12.2017 and 19.12.2017 were missed due to the diary error), the stand of the opposite parties could not be ruled out, and the learned lower court had awarded a cost of Rs. 2500/- and restored the appeal.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

No case of interference with the impugned restoration order was made out; the petition under Article 227 was dismissed.

¶25

Key takeaways

The title appeal shall be decided on its own merits, without being prejudiced by this order.obiter¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Article 227 petition challenging restoration of an appeal dismissed for default — dismissed. The petitioners assailed the order dated 24.04.2024 of the Principal District Judge, Hazaribag, in Civil Miscellaneous Case No. 03 of 2018 arising out of Title Appeal No. 31 of 2013, whereby a petition under Order XLI Rule 19 read with Section 151 CPC was allowed and the appeal — dismissed for default on 19.12.2017 for want of steps despite attendance on 12.12.2017 — was re-admitted with a cost of Rs. 2500/-. The lower court had accepted the explanation that the correct date (12.12.2017) was inadvertently diarised as 12.02.2018. Holding that the wrong posting of the date in the diary constituted sufficient cause and that the opposite parties' stand could not be ruled out, the High Court (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) found no case for interference, dismissed the petition, and directed that the title appeal be decided on its own merits without prejudice.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 675 of 2024

¶2

Mahavir Gope, aged about 63 years, son of Late Madhu Gope

¶3

Shambhu Gope, aged about 57 years, son of Late Madhu Gope.

¶4

Shankar Gope @ Tilak Gope, aged about 46 years, son of Late Madhu Gope.

¶5

All are residents of Village-Hurhuru, P.O.Hazaribag, P.S.-Sadar (Muffassil), District-Hazaribag.

¶6

..... … Petitioners Versus

¶7

Deepak Yadav, son of Late Harkhu Gope 2. Prakash Gope, son of Late Harkhu Gope 3. Narayan Yadav, son of Late Chander Gope 4.Shankar Gope, son of Late Moti Gope.

¶8

Jiban Gope, son of Late Nemiya @ Chamni @ Late Neto Gope Respondents Nos.1 to 5 are residents of village Hurhuru, P.O. + P.S. Sadar, District- Hazaribagh. 6. Meghan Gope, son of Late Sibi Gope 7. Kashi Gope So Late Sibi Gope No. 6 and 7 are resident of Village Duwari, P.O. & P.S. Gidhour, Ditrict Chatra. 8. Most. Lukhari, widow of Late Mutar Gope and daughter of Late Garib Gope, 9. Biru Gope, son of late Late Mutar Gope 10. Dashni Devi wife of Late Amrit Gope 11. Malti Devi daughter of Late Amrit Gope and wife of Nirmal Gope Respondents No. 8 to 11 are residents of Village Duwari, P.O. & P.S. Gidhour, Ditrict Chatra. 12. Sita Devi daughter of Late Amrit Gope and wife of Mahesh Gope, Resident of Village Revali, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, District Hazaribag 13. Pachu Gope, son of Late Dhanukhdhari Gope 14. Santosh Gope, son of Late Dhanukhdhari Gope Respondents No. 13 and 14 are residents of Village Hurhuru, P.O. Hazaribag, P.S. Sadar (Muffasil), District Hazaribag 15. Mohan Gope son of Late Janki Gope 16. Most. Keshiya W/o Late Chotan Gope 17. Most. Mira Devi, widow of late Ajay Gope Respondent Nos. 15-17 are residents of Village Hurhuru, P.O. Hazaribag, P.S.-Sadar (Muffasil), District Hazaribag. 18. Neelam Devi, daughter of Late Ajay Gope and

¶9

-1-

¶10

wife of Dayanand Yadav, resident of villageChiraundi, P.O., P.S. and District-Ranchi. 19. Poonam Kumari, daughter of Ajay Gope 20. Most. Manju widow of Late Rejesh Gope 21. Jitu Gope S/o Late Rajesh Gope (Minor) 22. Fudani Kumari D/o Late Rajesh Gope (Minor) 23. Guiya Devi wife of late Dipu Gope 24. Renu Kumari D/o Late Chhotan Gope 25. Pappu Gope, son of Late Puran Gope 26. Sanjana Kumari, daughter of Late Prakash Gope 27. Anjali Kumari, daughter of Late Prakash Gope, represented through the next friend i.e. their uncle, namely, Pappu Gope (Respondent No. 25 herein) 28. Subodh Gopee S/o Late Puran Gope Respondents No. 19 to 28 are resident of Village Hurhuru, P.O. Hazaribag, P.S. Sadar, District Hazaribag. 29. Rubi Devi D/o Late Puran Gope and W/o Binod Yadav, Resident of Village Chano, P.O. Hazaribag, P.S. Muffasil, District Hazaribag. 30. Guddi Devi D/o Late Manki Gope and W/o Mahabir Gope Resident of Village Noora, P.S. Sadar, P.O. & District Hazaribag. 31. Karmi Devi, wife of Anandi Mahto and daughter of Late Garib Gope, Resident of Village Noora, P.S. Sadar, P.O. & District Hazaribag. 32. Makhani Devi, wife of Anandi Mahto and daughter of Late Garib Gope, Resident of Village Sakhiya, P.S. Muffasil, P.O. & District Hazaribag. 33. Jaswa Devi, wife of Shri Chhattu Yadav and daughter of Late Neto Gope, resident of Village Masratu, P.O. & P.S.-Katkamsandi, District Hazaribag. 34. Mosomat Begni wife of Late Sukar Gope, and daughter of Late Neto Gope, resident of Krishnanagar, P.O. Rewali, P.S. Katkamsandi, District Hazaribag. 35. Muniya Devi, wife of Dulo Choudhary, resident of village Pipradih, P.O. Sarh, Bishrampur, P.S. Barkagaon, District Hazaribag.

¶11

Sarni Mosomat widow of Late Lati Gope and daughter of Late Guli Gope, resident of village Pipradih, P.O. Sarh P.S. Barkagaon, District Hazaribag.

¶12

Inderi Devi wife of Surendra Gope, and daughter of Late Guli Gope, resident of village Khirgaon, P.O. and P.S. Sadar, District Hazaribag.

¶13

-2-

¶14

Bindwa Devi wife of Madhu Gope, and daughter of Late Guli Gope, resident of village Mangaramo, P.O. and P.S. Barhi, District Hazaribag. 39. Mini Kumari wife of Dipu Kumar and daughter of Late Malo Gope, resident of Near Sapo Dera, P.O., P.S. Jamshedpur and District Singhbhum East. 40. Dahni Devi wife of Baijanth Gope and daughter of Janki Gope, resident of village Khirgaon, P.O. and P.S. Sadar, District Hazaribag. 41. Sakari Devii wife of not known, and daughter of Late Janki Gope, resident of village Dhengura, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, District Hazaribag. 42. Hema Devi wife of Sanjay Yadav, and daughter of Late Chandar Gope, resident of 1.04 village Baidarbad, P.O. and P.S.-Baidrabad, District-Patna, State Bihar. 43. Bhuneshwar Gope son of Late Golli Gope, resident of village Duwari, P.O. & P.S. Gidhour, District Chatra. 44. Urmila Devi wife of Ganesh Yadav, and daughter of Late Chander Gope, of village Bahadurpur, P.O. and P.S.-Bahadurpur, District Patna. 45. Kunti Devi wife of Mahesh Yadav, and daughter of Late Chander Gope, resident of village Makhmilpur, P.O. and P.S.- Makhmilpur, District Patna. ..... … Opposite Parties

¶15

¶16

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶17

-----For the Petitioners : Mr. Pratik Sen, Advocate. For the O.P. Nos. 1, 2,4 & 5: Mr. Pratyush Kumar, Advocate. ------

¶18

06/ 23.01.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the O.P. Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5.

¶19

This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 24.04.2024, passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Hazaribag, in connection with Civil Miscellaneous Case No. 03 of 2018 arising out of Title Appeal No. 31 of 2013, whereby the petition filed under Order-XLI, Rule-19 read with Section 151 of the CPC has been allowed by the learned court and the re-admission of Title Appeal No. 31 of 2013 was allowed.

¶20

Mr. Pratik Sen, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the said appeal was dismissed for default. He submits that

¶21

-3-

¶22

on 12.12.2017, attendance was made before the learned court and the said appeal was dismissed on 19.12.2017, as no step was taken on behalf of the opposite parties. He further submits that the said petition was filed on wrong facts and the learned court has allowed the same and re-admitted the appeal and the same has occurred due to the misleading facts, as stated by the opposite parties in the said appeal. He submits that it has been stated in the petition that the date for taking steps for publication was on 12.12.2017, but the junior counsel inadvertently taken the date as 12.02.2018 and forwarded the date in the diary on 12.02.2018 instead of 12.12.2017, as such the lawyer for the appellants could not know the dates about 12.12.2017, 14.12.2017 and 19.12.2017 and due to that mistake he could not take steps, as a result of which, the said Title Appeal was dismissed on 19.12.2017 and that statement is recorded in para-8 of the petition and the learned court considering that has been pleased to re-admit the said title appeal. On these grounds, he submits that the impugned order may kindly be set aside.

¶23

Mr. Pratyush Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 submits that it has occurred inadvertently and the correct date was not posted in the diary, as such no suppression was made. He submits that the opposite parties have appeared on 14.12.2017, however, on 19.12.2017, no step was taken, as such, the said appeal was dismissed.

¶24

The court finds that the learned court has awarded the cost of Rs. 2500/- and thereafter restored the said appeal. Further the stand taken by the opposite parties cannot be ruled out, as the wrong posting date was mentioned in the diary. As such, sufficient cause is made out and considering all these facts, the learned court has restored the said appeal.

¶25

In view of the above, no case of interference is made out, as such, this petition is dismissed.

¶26

It is made clear that the title appeal shall be decided on its own merits, without being prejudiced by this order.

¶27

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶28

Amitesh/-

¶29

-4-

Mahavir Gope v. Deepak Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahavir Gope v. Deepak Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kuraisa Bibi Vs Pushpa Devi Gupta

Monica Lamba Vs Grishma Vipul Mehta

Sanjay Tanuk Vs Mrs Mallika Asher

Hiramuni Devi Vs MD Anwar Ansari

Manoranjan Mahato Vs Circle Chas Fishermen Co. Operative Society Ltd. Chas

M/S Kalpataru Electricals and Allied Products Pvt. Ltd. Represented by Its Director Sri a K Agarwal Vs Gopal Kumar Kheria