Allowed¶52

The State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner v. Om Prakash Mital

Jharkhand HC2 Dec 2025MA/119/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

condonation of delay; restoration of appeal dismissed for default; Order XLI Rule 19; Section 151 CPC; limitation; State as litigant; liberal view; valuable right of first appeal; S.S. Sarvesh; Shivamma v. Karnataka Housing Board; Esha Bhattacharjee; Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries; Money Appeal No.02 of 2006; Money Suit No.02 of 1994; Revocation Case No.05 of 2014; 803 days delay; sub-contractor vs principal contractor; debris removal encroachment drive 1975; Chatra; Hazaribag; Jharkhand High Court; M.A. No.119 of 2018.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 12.05.2016 set aside; Misc. Appeal allowed; pending I.A., if any, disposed of. ¶52

The State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner Vs Om Prakash Mital — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order dated 12.05.2016 set aside; Misc. Appeal allowed; pending I.A., if any, disposed of.

¶52

Issue for consideration

Whether the rejection of the State's restoration application for Money Appeal No.02 of 2006 as barred by limitation (delay of 803 days) was sustainable, i.e., whether there was sufficient cause for the delay. +1 more

¶37

Court's answer

There is sufficient cause for explaining the delay in filing the restoration application, as the appeal was not being taken up.

¶48

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order dated 12.05.2016 dismissing the restoration application as barred by limitation is set aside.

¶51

Key takeaways

No different yardsticks can be applied between private parties and the State in limitation matters; however, a liberal view is to be taken while considering limitation petitions as they involve valuable rights of the parties.ratio¶47
The present case is distinguishable from Shivamma (dead): the delay here was 803 days, unlike the unexplained delay of 11 years in that case.ratio¶47

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Jharkhand High Court (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.), M.A. No.119 of 2018, decided 02.12.2025: The State of Jharkhand & Ors. challenged the order dated 12.05.2016 of the District & Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Chatra (Revocation Case No.05 of 2014) dismissing its application under Order XLI Rule 19 read with Section 151 CPC to restore Money Appeal No.02 of 2006 — preferred against the decree dated 31.08.2006 in Money Suit No.02 of 1994 (claim Rs.1,96,267.63/- by the legal heirs of Agarwal Yugal Kishore Prasad, a sub-contractor, against the State and principal contractor Mansukhlal Jain for debris-removal work of 1975) — as barred by limitation, the appeal having been dismissed for default on 13.01.2012 and restoration sought after 803 days. Held: (i) no different yardsticks apply between private parties and the State in limitation matters, yet a liberal view is warranted as limitation petitions involve valuable rights; (ii) relying on S.S. Sarvesh (first appeal is a valuable right of the State) and distinguishing Shivamma (dead) (unexplained 11-year delay versus 803 days here), there was sufficient cause for the delay. Impugned order set aside; Misc. Appeal allowed; pending I.A. disposed of.

¶1

2025:JHHC:36199

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

M. A. No.119 of 2018

¶4

1.The State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra.

¶5

2.The Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribag

¶6

3.The Engineer-in-Chief-cum- Additional Commissioner- cum- Special Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar now Jharkhand, Dhurwa, Ranchi.

¶7

4.The Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Circle, Hazaribag.

¶8

5.The Executive Engineer, Road Construction Circle, Chatra.

¶9

6.The Executive Engineer, Road Construction Division, Hazaribag.

¶10

7.The Sub-Divisional Officer, Road Construction Sub-Division, Chatra

¶11

.... .. ... Appellant(s)

¶12

Versus

¶13

Omprakash Mittal

¶14

Braham Prakash Agrawal

¶15

Dr. Dewanand Parakas

¶16

Bikramditya Udai

¶17

Shashi Bhusan Prarir

¶18

Chandra Prakash Chandan

¶19

All sons of Late Agrawal Yugal Kishore Prasad and permanent R/o Chatra, Town, Near Old Petrol Pump, Chatra, PO, PS and DistrictChatra and present R/o 2 Katchara Colliery Bermo, District- Bokaro. 3 and 4 at present R/o Madhupur, Thana Road, PO & PS- Madhupur, District- Deoghar.

¶20

Smt. Kiran Devi, D/o Late Jugal Kishor Prasad and W/o Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, PO & PS- Kako, District- Jahanabad, Bihar.

¶21

Smt. Jyoti Mani Agrawal, D/o Late Jugal Kishor Agrawal and W/o Arvind Kumar Agrawal at Banglagarh, PO and PS- Darbhanga, DistrictDarbhanga, Bihar.

¶22

Smt. Pribibala Agrawal, D/o Late Agrawal Yugul Kishore Prasad and wife of S. K. Dokaji, C/o Om Prakash Choudhary, R/o New Hira Park Dilchon Kalan Road, Nazafgorh, PO and PS- Nazafgorh, New Delhi.

¶23

Prabha Mittal, D/o Late Jugal Kishore Agrawal and W/o Binod Agrawal, R/o Ajay Kirana General Store, in front of Shri Sheopujan Lal, Advocate, Hospital Road, Buxer, PO and PS- Buxar, District- Buxer, Bihar.

¶24

Mansukhlal Jain, S/o Late Kasturlal Jain, R/o Badam Bazar, PO, PS and District- Hazaribag.

¶25

. .. ... ...Respondent(s)

¶26

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶27

For the Appellant (s) : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, SC (L&C)-I Mr. N. K. Pandey, AC to SC (L&C)-I

¶28

For the Resp.1 to 10 : Mr. Rajiv Nandan Prasad, Advocate Mr. Sushant Kumar Sinha, Advocate

¶29

04/ 02.12.2025 . Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

¶30

The State of Jharkhand & Ors. are the appellants and are aggrieved by the order dated 12.05.2016 passed by learned District & Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Chatra, in Revocation Case No.05 of 2014 whereby and whereunder, the petition filed under Order XLI Rule 19 read with Section 151 CPC for restoration of

¶31

¶32

2025:JHHC:36199

¶33

Money Appeal No.02 of 2006 has been dismissed for being barred by limitation.

¶34

The Respondent Nos.1 to 10 are the substituted legal heirs and representatives of the original plaintiff [Agarwal Yugal Kishore Prasad] who filed the Money Suit claiming Rs.1,96,267.63/impleading the State and the principal Contractor, Mansukhlal Jain (defendant No.9) for the work completed in removing the debris accumulated on account of demolition of structure under encroachment removal drives during the drive from 03.08.1975 to 03.10.1975.

¶35

The said Money Suit was decreed against the State vide Judgment dated 31.08.2006 passed in Money Suit No.02 of 1994.

¶36

The appeal was preferred by the State within the stipulated period of time which dismissed for default on 13.01.2012 and restoration was filed after a delay of 2 years 2 months and 13 days (i.e. 803 days).

¶37

The restoration was held to be barred vide the impugned order against which, the instant Misc. Appeal has been preferred.

¶38

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants- State that the judgment and decree ex-facie is not sustainable as the original plaintiff was a sub-contractor and working under Principal Contractor Mansukh Lal Jain. Any issue of delayed payment was between the principal contractor and the sub-contractor, but the learned Trial Court has erroneously awarded the decree against the appellants- State.

¶39

So far the delay part is concerned, it is argued by learned counsel for the appellants- State that Respondents were not appearing on several dates and consequently, hearing was adjourned .The appellants- State was vigilant for hearing on each and every date save and except on 13.01.2012 when the appeal was dismissed for default.

¶40

It is submitted that miscarriage of justice would be caused, if the appeal is not heard on merits. Reliance is placed on in the case of Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Limited vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and Anr ., 2010 (5) SCC 459 and in the case of The Commissioner, Mysore Urban Development Authority vs. S. S. Sarvesh passed in Civil Appeal No.1463 of 2019 (arising out of S. L. P. (C) No.23718 of

¶41

¶42

2025:JHHC:36199

¶43

2018) wherein it has been held that in dealing with application for condonation of delay filed on behalf of the State, certain amount of latitude is to be shown because the State represents collective cause of community and the decisions are taken by the officers/ agencies.

¶44

It is further argued that law is settled that in limitation matter, liberal view is to be taken so that lis between the parties is decided on merits and no cast away on the technicalities.

¶45

Learned counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 10 submits that there cannot be different yardsticks being applied so far the limitation matter is concerned as held by the Apex Court in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969 [Shivamma (dead) by Lrs. Vs. Karnataka Housing Board and Ors.] and also in 2013 (12) SCC 649 [ Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and Ors] .

¶46

Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, it appears that the said Money Suit was filed 20 years after the execution of the work, by Sub-Contractor against the principal contractor impleading the State as a party. The suit was decreed. Appeal was preferred in time, but the same was dismissed, for default due to laches on the part of the conducting counsel appearing before the First Appellate Court on behalf of the State.

¶47

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has rightly submitted that no different yardsticks can be applied, so far private and State entities are concerned. However, at the same time there is long line of judicial precedents that, while considering the limitation petition, liberal view needs to be taken because it involves valuable rights of the parties. Hon’ble the Supreme Court has held in the case of S. S. Sarvesh (supra) at Para-21 that the First Appeal is a valuable right of the appellant- State and, therefore, the appellant(s)/ authorities were entitled for an opportunity to prosecute their appeal(s) on merit. The facts of the instant case is distinguishable from [Shivamma (dead)] (supra) where there was an unexplained delay of 11 years whereas in the present case the delay was of 803 days.

¶48

Under the circumstances, this Court is of the view that there is sufficient cause for explaining the delay as the appeal was not

¶49

¶50

2025:JHHC:36199

¶51

being taken up and considering the overall facts of the case, the impugned order is set aside.

¶52

The instant Misc. Appeal stands allowed. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

¶53

( Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J. )

¶54

Sandeep/-

¶55

Uploaded 4.12.2025.

¶56

Parties & counsel

AI extract

appellant
The State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra¶4
Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, SC (L&C)-I, Mr. N. K. Pandey, AC to SC (L&C)-I
appellant
The Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribag¶5
Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, SC (L&C)-I, Mr. N. K. Pandey, AC to SC (L&C)-I
appellant
The Engineer-in-Chief-cum- Additional Commissioner- cum- Special Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar now Jharkhand, Dhurwa, Ranchi.¶6
Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, SC (L&C)-I, Mr. N. K. Pandey, AC to SC (L&C)-I
appellant
The Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Circle, Hazaribag.¶7
Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, SC (L&C)-I, Mr. N. K. Pandey, AC to SC (L&C)-I
appellant
The Executive Engineer, Road Construction Circle, Chatra.¶8
Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, SC (L&C)-I, Mr. N. K. Pandey, AC to SC (L&C)-I
appellant
The Executive Engineer, Road Construction Division, Hazaribag.¶9
Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, SC (L&C)-I, Mr. N. K. Pandey, AC to SC (L&C)-I
appellant
The Sub-Divisional Officer, Road Construction Sub-Division, Chatra¶10
Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, SC (L&C)-I, Mr. N. K. Pandey, AC to SC (L&C)-I
respondent
Omprakash Mittal¶13
Mr. Rajiv Nandan Prasad, Advocate, Mr. Sushant Kumar Sinha, Advocate
respondent
Braham Prakash Agrawal¶14
Mr. Rajiv Nandan Prasad, Advocate, Mr. Sushant Kumar Sinha, Advocate
respondent
Dr. Dewanand Parakas¶15
Mr. Rajiv Nandan Prasad, Advocate, Mr. Sushant Kumar Sinha, Advocate
respondent
Bikramditya Udai¶16
Mr. Rajiv Nandan Prasad, Advocate, Mr. Sushant Kumar Sinha, Advocate
respondent
Shashi Bhusan Prarir¶17
Mr. Rajiv Nandan Prasad, Advocate, Mr. Sushant Kumar Sinha, Advocate
respondent
Chandra Prakash Chandan¶18
Mr. Rajiv Nandan Prasad, Advocate, Mr. Sushant Kumar Sinha, Advocate
respondent
Smt. Kiran Devi¶20
Mr. Rajiv Nandan Prasad, Advocate, Mr. Sushant Kumar Sinha, Advocate
respondent
Smt. Jyoti Mani Agrawal¶21
Mr. Rajiv Nandan Prasad, Advocate, Mr. Sushant Kumar Sinha, Advocate
respondent
Smt. Pribibala Agrawal¶22
Mr. Rajiv Nandan Prasad, Advocate, Mr. Sushant Kumar Sinha, Advocate
respondent
Prabha Mittal¶23
Mr. Rajiv Nandan Prasad, Advocate, Mr. Sushant Kumar Sinha, Advocate
respondent
Mansukhlal Jain¶24

Coram

AI extract

Gautam Kumar Choudharyauthor¶26

The State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner v. Om Prakash Mital

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner v. Om Prakash Mital

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Reena Devi Vs Ms Rungta Projects through Deepak Rungta and Ors.

Rishikeshwar Soni (Power of Attorney Holder of Birendra Narayan Satyarthi, Defendent No. 1 Vs Loknath Saw

Sudha Gupta Vs Mohammad Jalil

Munni Devi Vs Ms Balaji Processing Works in Charge Adarsh Kumar

Devanti Devi Alias Hewanti Devi Vs Om Prakash Singh

Arun Kumar Budhia Vs Jashita Devi (Died)