The Patna High Court dismissed a restoration application and the prayer for condonation of delay. The court held that no sufficient cause was shown for the inaction of the original appellant between 1999 and 2008 and 2012.
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.1692 of 2013
In
SA 632 of 1993
======================================================
Both Sons of Late Gaya Sah.
All Residents of Village-Barka Chhap, P.s.-Mirganj, District-Gopalganj.
Versus
All D/o of Late Sakhi Chand Sah.
All residents of Village- Chhap Mathia, P.S.-Mirganj, District-Gopalganj.
All sons of late Atwaria Devi and Khelari Sah.
All daughters of Late Atwaria Devi and Khelari Sah.
All R/o Village-Surbir, P.S.-Maharajganj, District-Siwan.
Patna High Court MJC No.1692 of 2013 (6) dt.22-07-2015
2
d. Shashak Singh.
All sons of Ram Brikcha Singh.
i. Phool Jharia Devi.
All daughter of Late Ram Brikcha Singh.
b. Krishna Sah.
All Daughters of Late Ram Chanda Sah.
All R/o Village- Chhap Mathia, P.S.-Mirganj, District-Gopalganj.
Patna High Court MJC No.1692 of 2013 (6) dt.22-07-2015
3
Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. For the Respondent/s : Mr.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. NATH ORAL JUDGMENT
6 22-07-2015
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.
This restoration application has been filed for readmission of this appeal which stood dismissed by the order dated 20.09.1999. The interlocutory application (I.A.No.2781/2015) has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, praying for condonation of delay in filing the restoration application.
The learned counsel for the petitioners has made his submissions that the petitioners who are the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased sole appellant Gaya Sah had earlier no knowledge of the pendency of this appeal and therefore no petition for restoration could be filed earlier. It has, therefore, been prayed that since the said S.A.No.632/1993 was earlier admitted for hearing, a lenient view should be taken and the same be restored to its original file after condonation of delay.
From the averments made in the interlocutory application (I.A.No.2781/2015) for condonation of delay, it transpires that the statement has been made in paragraph 3 to the
Patna High Court MJC No.1692 of 2013 (6) dt.22-07-2015
4
effect that the petitioners had no knowledge of the pendency of the second appeal before this Court and they could get the knowledge of the same on 21.07.2012 and after that they filed the two interlocutory applications (I.A.No.5197/2012 and I.A.No.5198/2012) in the second appeal, praying for substitution of the deceased appellants and also some of the respondents. However, no corroborative material/event has been brought on record or stated in the petition to substantiate as to how, in fact, it was only on 21.07.2012 that the petitioners could get the knowledge of the pendency of the appeal. From the perusal of the order dated 20.09.1999 passed in the second appeal, it is apparent that the said order had been passed after hearing the parties. Admittedly, the sole appellant died in the year 2008 and had not taken any step for restoration/re-admission of the second appeal right from 1999 up to 2008. There is absolutely no explanation on behalf of the petitioners with regard to inaction of the sole appellant in the second appeal for so many years. The statement made in the petition for condonation of delay appears to be casual in nature and this Court is not persuaded to find that sufficient cause has been made out for condonation of the long delay in filing the restoration application.
Accordingly, the prayer for condonation of delay is
Patna High Court MJC No.1692 of 2013 (6) dt.22-07-2015
5
declined. Consequently, the restoration application is also dismissed. (V. Nath, J) Nitesh/U
1 issue framed by the court
Whether sufficient cause is made out for condonation of delay in filing a restoration application for a dismissed second appeal.
Kailasiya Kunwar
Sanat Sah
Dhananjay Sah
Suganti Devi
Hairhar Sah
Radhiki
V. Nath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
