The Court rejected an interlocutory application for withdrawal of the default dismissal petition. Consequently, the First Appeal was dismissed as default dismissed against all respondents for non-compliance of a previous order dated 18.4.2017.
I.A. No. 04 of 2022 rejected. First Appeal No. 153 of 2009 dismissed as DF./D.
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 FIRST APPEAL No.153 of 2009
======================================================
GEYANESHWAR SINGH @ GANESH SINGH, son of Late Sant Belash Singh, resident of village:-Semaria, P.O:-Barahara, Thana:- Barahara, District:-Bhojpur
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Defendant 1st set-Respondent 1st set. 2. Sachidanand Singh, son of Late Sant Bilash Singh, resident of villageSemaria, P.O.:- Barahara, Thana- Barahara, District- Bhojpur, working at the post of Sheet Metal Inspector, I.T.I, Marhaura, Thana-Marhaura, DistrictSaran and now residing at Bank Men’s Colony, Chitragupta Nagar, Patna, Plot No. C/6, District-Patna
Defendant 2nd Set-Respondent 2nd Set 3. Tulsi Singh, son of Late Sant Belash Singh, resident of Village- Semaria, P.O:- Barahara, Thana:- Barahara, District:- Bhojpur. Retired on the Post of Steel City, P.O:-Bokaro, Thana:-Bokaro at present living at Bank Men’s Colony, Chitragupta Nagar, Patna
Defendant 3rd Set-Respondent 3rd Set 4. Ramesh Singh @ Bhola Singh, son of Late Sant Balesh Singh, resident of village:- Semaria, P.O:- Barahara, Thana:- Barahara, District:- Bhojpur, retired at JamaDubha, Tata Workshop, Thana:-JamaDubha, District:-Dhanbad at present residing in Bank Men’s Colony, Chitragupta Nagar, Plot No. C/2, Patna.
Defendant 4th Set-Respondent 4th Set 5. Pradip Singh, son of Late Sant Balesh Singh, resident of Village-Semaria, P.O.- Barahara, Thana-Barahara, District-Bhojpur
Defendant 5th Set-Respondent 5th Set
====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr.Dr. Pankaj, Advocate For the Respondent/s :
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER
18 05-12-2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
As per the office notes dated 30.11.2022, this appeal
has become D.F.D. as against respondent Nos. 1 to 5 for noncompliance of the order dated 18.4.2017.
Patna High Court FA No.153 of 2009(18) dt.05-12-2022 2/3
The I.A. No. 04 of 2022 has been filed for
reconsideration of the office notes dated 11.9.2019 by which it
was recorded :
“ This memo of appeal stood dismissed for default against respondent No. 1 to 5.”
I.A. No. 04 of 2022
Dr. Pankaj, learned counsel for the appellant duly assisted by Mr. Naveen Kumar Sinha, who is the counsel on record, submits that under wrong advice, the I.A. No. 04 of 2022 has been filed and as such, he may be permitted to withdraw the said petition in view of the fact that wrong facts have been incorporated in the said petition.
On the basis of the said submission made by Dr. Pankaj, the I.A. No. 04 of 2022 stands rejected.
As per the office notes, the appeal already stands D.F.D. as against the respondent No. 1 to 5 due to noncompliance of the order dated 18.4.2017.
On 18.4.2017, a coordinate bench had passed the following order :-
“Four weeks’ time is granted to appellant to file show cause notice as directed by this court through previous order, failing which memo of appeal shall stand dismissed
Patna High Court FA No.153 of 2009(18) dt.05-12-2022 3/3
without further reference to the Bench against the concerned respondents.”
As rightly pointed out by the office notes dated
30.11.2022, the appeal stands rejected against respondent No. 1 to 5 in view of the non-compliance of the aforesaid order dated 18.4.2017.
In view of the said facts, nothing left and accordingly, the First Appeal No. 153 of 2009 stands dismissed.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
ajaysingh/-
U
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the First Appeal which stood Default Dismissed should be reconsidered to grant withdrawal of the default dismissal application or to withdraw the default dismissal petition.
Whether the appeal remains in default and liable to be dismissed for non-compliance of the prior order.
Geyaneshwar Singh @ Ganesh Singh
Kamala Devi
Sachidanand Singh
Tulsi Singh
Ramesh Singh
Pradip Singh
Rajiv Roy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
