Vinay Kumar Manjhi And Ors. Vs Dhirendra Nath Baid And Ors.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Second Appeal No. 325 of 2016

¶3

Vinay Kumar Manjhi S/o Late Durbale @ Pegli Manjhiyan, Resident of Village Bandia, P.O. Bandia, P.S. Ramgarh, District Dumka

¶4

Smt. Chhabi Mandalain, D/o Late Durbale @ Pegli Manjhaiyan, W/o Bibhishan Manjhi, Resident of Village Khari Balrampur P.O.- Kokania, Jarmundi, District - Dumka

¶5

Smt. Kobi Mandalain, D/o Late Durbale @ Pegli Manjhian, W/o Ballaov Mandal, Resident of Village Kurmathari, P.O. Kurmahal, P.S. Hansdia, District - Dumka.

¶6

Parmila Devi, D/o Late Fatik Mandal, Resident of village Gram Bhataria, P.O. Bhataria, P.S. Ramgarh, District - Dumka.

¶7

Savitri Khalu Manjhian, D/o Late Radha Nath Baid, W/o Nagar Baid, Resident of village Bandia, P.O. Bandia, P.S. Ramgarh, District, Dumka ... Plaintiffs/ Respondent 1st Party / Appellants Versus

¶8

Dhirendra Nath Baid, S/o Late Ranjan Baid

¶9

Arun Baid, S/o Dhiren Baid

¶10

Mihir Kumar Baid, S/o Dhiren Baid

¶11

Rasu Baid, S/o Dhiren Baid All Residents of Village Bhairabpur, P.S. Jama, Ρ.Ο. Bhairabpur, District - Dumka.

¶12

… … Defendants 1st Party / Appellants / Respondents

¶13

Karan Baid, S/o Dhanpati Baid

¶14

Mahesh Baid, S/o Dhanpati Baid

¶15

Mahadev Baid, S/o Narayan Baid

¶16

Lakhan Baid, S/o Narayan Baid

¶17

Ram Baid, S/o Narayan Baid All residents of village Bhairabpur, P.O. Bhairabpur, P.S. Jama, District Dumka

¶18

… Defendants 2^nd Party/Respondent 2^nd party/ Respondent ---

¶19

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶20

¶21

For the Appellant : None For the Respondents : Mr. Aditya Banerjee, Advocate ---

¶22

09 /04.03.2025

¶23

Nobody appears on behalf of the appellant.

¶24

2. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 17.03.2016 decree signed on 29.03.2016 passed by District Judge-II, Dumka in Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2012 whereby the learned Appellate Court has allowed the Civil Appeal filed by the defendants 1^st party/appellant/respondent reversing the judgment dated 08.06.2012

¶25

decree signed on 25.06.2012 passed by Sub Judge-II, Dumka in Title (P) Suit No. 34 of 2000.

¶26

3. Learned counsel for the respondents is present. He submits that he has appeared pursuant to the notice issued vide order dated 13.04.2017. However, no substantial question of law has been framed so far in this second appeal.

¶27

4. Learned counsel for the respondents has also referred to supplementary affidavit filed in this case vide affidavit dated 28.06.2017 stating that the respondent no. 1 has already expired in the year 2016.

¶28

5. The records of the case reveal that the matter has been running under the heading for hearing on Order 41 rule 11 CPC. Following orders have been drawn in this case from time to time:-

¶29

Order dated 11.01.2023 is as under:-

¶30

“ No one turns up on behalf of either of the parties in spite

¶31

of repeated calls.

¶32

List this appeal after a week as the last chance under the heading ‘For Hearing’ under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. ”

¶33

Order dated 25.01.2023 is as under:-

¶34

“ Heard the parties.

¶35

The learned counsel for the appellant prays for

¶36

time.

¶37

Perusal of the record reveals that earlier time was allowed to the appellant as the last chance.

¶38

Prayer for time is allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.1,000/- by the appellants to the respondents through the learned counsel for the respondents appearing in the record within four weeks and to file the proof of such payment in this Court within four weeks, failing which this appeal shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Bench.

¶39

If the proof of payment of cost of Rs.1,000/- by the appellants to the respondents through the learned counsel for the respondents appearing in the record is filed within four weeks, list this appeal after four weeks.”

¶40

Order dated 01.03.2023 is as under:-

¶41

2

¶42

Perusal of the record reveals that vide order dated 25.01.2023, prayer for time was allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.1,000/- by the appellants to the respondents through their counsel appearing in the record within four weeks and today also learned counsel for the appellants again prays for time.

¶43

Prayer for time is allowed subject to deposit of Rs.2,000/- by the appellants with the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority (JHALSA) within four weeks from the date of this order, failing which, this appeal shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Bench.

¶44

List this appeal under the same heading after four weeks in case the appellants file the proof of deposit of Rs.2,000/- by the appellants with the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority (JHALSA) within four weeks from the date of this order.

¶45

Order dated 08.07.2024 is as under:-

¶46

“ Heard the parties.

¶47

Learned counsel for the appellants prays for time. Perusal of the record reveals that earlier time was allowed to the appellants on deposit of Rs.2,000/- with JHALSA.

¶48

Prayer for time is allowed subject to deposit of Rs.4,000/- by the appellants with Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority (JHALSA) within two weeks, failing which, this appeal shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Bench.

¶49

If the proof of deposit of Rs.4,000/- with JHALSA by the appellants is filed within two weeks, list this appeal after six weeks.”

¶50

6. When the case is taken up today, nobody is appearing on behalf of the appellants. The appellants have been given repeated opportunity, at time without imposing cost, and at time upon imposition of cost. It seems that the appellants are not interested in pursuing this case.

¶51

7. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.

¶52

8. Pending interlocutory applicant, if any is also closed.

¶53

9. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through e-mail/FAX.

¶54

Binit

¶55

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶56

3