Patna High Court granted no relief in a restoration application (MJC No.1693 of 2013) filed by appellants against non-dismissal of their second appeal. The court held that the appeal was dismissed in default for non-compliance of a peremptory order.
Restoration application MJC No.1693 of 2013 dismissed; Second Appeal remains dismissed in default.
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.1693 of 2013
In
Second Appeal No.646 of 2010
======================================================
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
Jagdish Yadav S/O Late Sahib Narayan Resident Of Village Rasalpur, Sahoran @ Baheri, P.O. And P.S. Baheri, District Darbhanga.
... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bhubneshwar Prasad For the Respondent/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 10 26-10-2018 Second Appeal No. 646 of 2010 stood dismissed in default for non-compliance of the peremptory order dated
Patna High Court MJC No.1693 of 2013(10) dt.26-10-2018 2/6
22.11.2011, whereby the appellants/petitioners were required to remove certain defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter which was not done since the appellants had failed to comply with an earlier order dated 14.09.2011, of the Lawzima Board. For restoration of the said second appeal, MJC No. 1693 of 2013 has been filed. From the order-sheet, it transpires that several adjournments were granted in the restoration application. When on 18.09.2018, again an adjournment was being sought on the ground of illness of the learned counsel for the appellants, this Court recorded the previous adjournments already granted. Be it noted that on the previous occasion, viz., 11.09.2018, this Court had made it clear that it will examine the merit of the second appeal also before considering the case for restoration.
Patna High Court MJC No.1693 of 2013(10) dt.26-10-2018 3/6
out on 25.11.2011 that the file was placed before the Bench for orders. It is also asserted that the appellants/petitioners filed another inspection slip for inspection of the filed for compliance of the peremptory order of this Court but the said slip could not be placed for inspection and, therefore, the appellants could not comply with the said order. The assertion that after the appellants had filed the inspection slip on 25.11.2011, he had filed another slip again for the said purpose of complying with the peremptory order of this Court is vague inasmuch as it does not mention the date when the said inspection slip was filed. The appellant has, in the application, blamed the Registry of this Court for non compliance of the peremptory order. The petitioners/appellants were allowed two weeks’ time by order dated 22.11.2011. Whether the petitioners/appellants took any effective step for compliance of the said order after 25.11.2011, has not been stated. No application was filed for extension of time granted by this Court by order dated 22.11.2011 for removing the defects till the time so granted lapsed. The appellants/petitioners filed the present restoration application nearly one and half years after they were directed to remove the defects. This is one aspect of the matter. The another aspect is that the defects which was pointed out by the Registry was that
Patna High Court MJC No.1693 of 2013(10) dt.26-10-2018 4/6
the memo of appeal did not contain substantial questions of law, which according to the appellants/petitioners, the second appeal involves.
Patna High Court MJC No.1693 of 2013(10) dt.26-10-2018 5/6
the defendants. One of the issues which was to be decided by the trial Court, was whether the suit of the plaintiff/respondent came under the purview of Section 12 of the Act and in that background issue No.6 was framed as to whether the order passed by the Collector under Section 12 of the Act were valid or not. The Courts below after having recorded their concurrent finding that the documents were not the sale deeds rather the deeds of mortgage have held that all the documents except 2/A and 2/D were covered by the Act. After having held so, the trial Court directed the appellants to hand over the possession in favour of the plaintiff on payment of an amount of Rs. 6,000/(six thousand) in respect of the suit property covered by exhibit 2/A (Keshra No. 4359 and 4360 admeasuring 14 dhur) and exhibit 2/D ( Keshra No. 4136, 14 dhurs) within sixty days. The concurrent findings so recorded by the Courts below, in my view, are based on appreciation of evidence and application of correct principles of law. As a matter of fact, the Second Appeal itself was not maintainable since it did not contain substantial questions of law which according to the appellants, the appeal involved. The substantial questions of law which learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants has attempted to raise in course of argument cannot be treated to the substantial
Patna High Court MJC No.1693 of 2013(10) dt.26-10-2018 6/6
questions.
(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J)
arun/-
U
RAM CHANDRA YADAV AND OTHERS
JAGDISH YADAV
CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
