Kunal Sarangi Vs State of Jharkhand

[2025:JHHC:31391] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

C.M.P. No.839 of 2025

Kunal Sarangi, aged about 45 Years, son of Shri Dinesh Kumar, resident of Baharagora, P.O. & P.S.- Bahragora, District- East Singhbhum … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

Special Land Acquisition Officer, Subarnekha Project, Dimna Road, Mango, P.O. & P.S. Mango, District- Singhbhum East

¶7

… Opposite Parties

¶8

------

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶10

For the Petitioners : Ms. Vani Kumari, Advocate Mr. P. A. S. Pati, Advocate Ms. Jagriti, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Tiwari, SC I Mr. Ankit Kumar, AC to SC I ------

¶11

Order No:-02 Dated:-10-10-2025

¶12

I.A. No.1157 of 2025

¶13

Heard the parties.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this interlocutory application has been filed with the prayer to condone the delay of 51 days in filing the instant C.M.P. It is further submitted that dismiss for default memo in respect of F.A. No.01 of 2024 was received by the office of the conducting advocate on 21.11.2024 but the petitioner could not contact the conducting advocate resulting in dismissal of the said First Appeal. It is further submitted that the petitioner had been an elected representative and due to the State Assembly Elections being held at that time, he could not contact his conducting advocate and by the time he contacted his advocate the delay had already occurred. It is next submitted that the delay caused in filing the instant C.M.P. is neither deliberate nor intentional. It is next submitted that the petitioner has very good grounds to agitate in the said

¶15

F.A. No.01 of 2024 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 51 days in filing the instant C.M.P., be condoned.

¶16

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay of 51 days in filing the instant C.M.P. is condoned.

¶17

Accordingly, this interlocutory application stands allowed.

¶18

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶19

C.M.P. No.839 of 2025

¶20

This civil miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer for restoration of First Appeal No.01 of 2024 to its original file which stood dismissed for non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 04.10.2024 passed by this Court.

¶21

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that First Appeal No.01 of 2024 stood dismissed for non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 04.10.2024 passed by this Court to remove the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter. It is next submitted that due to mistake, the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter could not be removed within the stipulated time which resulted in dismissal of the said First Appeal No.01 of 2024. It is next submitted that non-compliance of the said order dated 04.10.2024 within the stipulated time was neither deliberate nor intentional. It is also submitted that the petitioner has very good grounds to agitate in the said First Appeal No.01 of 2024 and unless the same is restored to its original file, the petitioner will be highly prejudiced. Hence, it is submitted that the First Appeal No.01 of 2024 be restored to its original file.

¶22

Learned counsel for the opposite parties have not raised any serious objection.

¶23

Considering the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, First Appeal No.01 of 2024 is directed to be restored to its original file at the same stage at which it was before its dismissal.

¶24

Registry is directed to list First Appeal No.01 of 2024 before the concerned Bench after a week.

¶25

This civil miscellaneous petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶26

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶27

Dated- 10.10.2025-Animesh/

Kunal Sarangi v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kunal Sarangi v. State of Jharkhand

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

Rajesh Sinha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ramdhani Yadav Vs Vasudeo Alias Vasudev Harjivan Pathak

Kiran Lakra Alias Kiran Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand