The Court allowed an interlocutory application condoning a 108-day delay, permitting deemed service on one respondent. It restored a Second Appeal previously dismissed for want of prosecution, accepting the petitioner's reasons for the omission.
Delay of 108 days in filing MJC application condoned; Second Appeal No. 309 of 2009 restored.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.717 of 2011
====================================================== Mishri Lal Thakur .... .... Petitioner Versus Smt. Sumitra Devi & Ors .... .... Opp. Parties ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kumar Prasad, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Jyoti Ranjan Jha, Advocate Nos. 2 to 5 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE RAVI RANJAN ORAL ORDER
10 02-01-2013 Perused the office notes. In view of the refusal by the opposite party no. 8 to receive the notice, let the service of notice upon him be accepted as deemed service.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the opposite party nos. 2 to 5. None appears on behalf of other opposite parties.
I.A. No. 2247 of 2012 has been filed for condoning the delay of about 108 days in preferring the M.J.C. No. 717 of 2011.
Notices were issued upon the opposite parties in
Patna High Court MJC No.717 of 2011 (10) dt.02-01-2013
2 / 2
limitation as well as in admission matter. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite parties.
From the averments made in paragraph nos. 3 to 5 of this interlocutory application, it appears that the petitioners were prevented by sufficient cause from preferring this M.J.C. application within time.
In above view of the matter the aforesaid interlocutory application is allowed and the delay in filing of M.J.C. No. 717 of 2011 is hereby condoned.
Now I proceed to consider M.J.C. No. 717 of 2011 on its own merit.
This application has been filed for restoration of S.A. No. 309 of 2009, which stood dismissed for want of prosecution on 21.9.2010.
On being satisfied with the sufficiency of reasons mentioned in this application for omission on part of the petitioner, the same is allowed and the Second Appeal No. 309 of 2009 is restored to its original file and number.
(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)
Spd/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether delay in filing the miscellaneous jurisdictional application can be condoned.
Whether a second appeal dismissed for want of prosecution can be restored.
Mishri Lal Thakur
Smt. Sumitra Devi & Ors.
Ravi Ranjan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
