This order restored Special Appeal No. 43 of 1993(R) to its original file after it was dismissed for failure to deposit an amount within the stipulated time. No opposite party appeared.
Special Appeal No. 43 of 1993(R) restored to original file; list under appropriate heading after a week.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
( 2026:JHHC:27491 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 1397 of 2023
All Sl. 2 to 4, R/o village Pargama, P.O. Murhu, P.S. Nimdih, District –Singhbhum West Now Seraikella –Kharsawan.
.... .... …. Petitioners
Versus
3(a) Basu Mahto, S/o Late Kamla Mahtain and Late Dinabandhu Mahato
3(b) Nidubala Mahato, D/o Late Kamla Mahtain @ Late Dinabandhu Mahato
3(c) Reshmi Mahato, D/o Late Kamla Mahtain & Late Dinabandhu Mahato
3(d) Munkabala Mahato, d/o Late Kamla Mahtain & Late Dinabandhu Mahato
All r/o Village Pathrakhun, P.O. Gourangakocha, P.S. Ichagarh, District –Seraikella-Kharsawan.
4(a) Budheswar Mahato, S/o Late Amla Mahtain & Late Sri Ram Mahato
4(b) Parmeshwar Mahato, S/o Late Amla Mahtain & Late Sri Ram Mahato
4(c) China Mahato, D/o Late Amla Mahtain & Late Sri Ram Mahato
4(d) Bharati Mahato, D/o Late Amla Mahtain & Late Sri Ram Mahato
All r/o village –Khudilong, P.O. Janum, P.S. Nimdih, District – Seraikella-Kharsawan
5(a) Parmeshwar Mahato, S/o Late Sindhu Mahtain & Late Dhaniram Mahato, R/o Village Bandabir, P.O. Kukru, P.S. Tiruldih, District –Seraikella-Kharsawan.
.... .... .... Opp. Parties
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ahalya Mahato, Advocate : Mr. Harendra Kr. Mahato, Advocate : Ms. Jyotsna Mahato, Advocate
------
Order No.13 Dated- 11.09.2026
Heard the parties.
This civil miscellaneous petition has been filed at the instance of the petitioners for restoration of S.A. No. 43 of 1993(R) to its original file.
No one turns up on behalf of the opposite parties in-spite of repeated calls.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that S.A. No. 43 of 1993(R) was dismissed for non-compliance of the peremptory order of this Court dated 23.08.2022 whereby prayer for time was allowed to the appellants subject to deposit of Rs.1,000/- with the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority (JHALSA) within four weeks. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that information was given to the appellants through the son of the appellant/petitioner no.4 to deposit the amount of Rs.1000/- as per the order dated 23.08.2022 but the same could not be deposited within the stipulated time, resulting in dismissal of the said S.A. No. 43 of 1993(R). It is next submitted that the petitioners have very good grounds to agitate in the said S.A. No. 43 of 1993(R) and unless S.A. No. 43 of 1993(R) is restored to its original file, the petitioners will be highly prejudiced. Hence, it is submitted that S.A. No. 43 of 1993(R) be restored to its original file.
Considering the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, S.A. No. 43 of 1993(R) is restored to its original file to the stage at which, it was before its dismissal.
List S.A. No. 43 of 1993(R) under the appropriate heading after a week before the appropriate Bench.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )
11.09.2026
Sonu-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether Special Appeal No. 43 of 1993(R) should be restored following dismissal for non-compliance with a time-bound deposit order.
Chinta Mahto and others
The State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
Anil Kumar Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
