Jharkhand High Court
Mahto Oraon @ Rameshwar Oraon Age 60 ... vs Binod Kachhap on 30 June, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
2025:JHHC:17457
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
----
C.M.P. No. 323 of 2023
----
Mahto Oraon @ Rameshwar Oraon age 60 years son of late Daswa Oraon @ Dukhna Oraon by caste Oraon by profession cultivation resident of Village Tiril Kokar, PO RMCH P.S. Sadar District Ranchi PIN 834009 ....... Petitioner/Opp.Party No.2/Defendant No.2
-- Versus --
1.Binod Kachhap, son of late Sanicharwa Oraon
2.Somra Oraon son of late Daswa Oraon @ Dukhna Oraon
3.Mahavir Oraon son of late Tudu Oraon
4.Mangri Orain wife late Gujuwa Oraon
5.Deepak Oraon
6.Guntarwa Oraon
7.Karma Oraon
8.Dharma Oraon 5 to 8 are the sons of late Gujuwa Oraon, 4 to 8 are legal heirs of plaintiff no.2 late Gujuwa Oraon, 1to 8 are resident of Village Tiril Kokar, PO RMCH, PS Sadar District Ranchi PIN 834009
9.Deputy Commmissioner, Ranchi, PO GPO, PS Kotwali District Ranchi 834001
10.The State of Jharkhand ...... .... ... Opposite Party(s)
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Satya Narayan Prasad, Advocate For the Respondent State :- Mr. Sachin Kumar, AC to SC-I For the Opposite Party No.2: Mr. Pradeep Kumar Nayak, Advocate For the Opposite Party Nos.5to8: Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Satendra Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate
----
08/30.06.2025 Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as the Opposite party nos.2 and 5 to 8 respectively. 1 C.M.P. No. 323 of 2023
2025:JHHC:17457
2. Notices upon Opposite parties have already been effected and it has been recorded in the order dated 05.05.2025 and with a view to provide one more opportunity to the Opposite parties the matter was adjourned on that date and today they are also absent and in view of that this petition is being heard in absence of the other opposite parties upon whom the notices have been served and they have chosen not to appear in the matter.
3. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 24.01.2023 passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division-X Ranchi in Miscellaneous Case No.142 of 2018 whereby the petition filed under Order IX Rule 9 of the CPC for restoration of the suit dismissed for default has been allowed and the suit being Title Suit No.451 of 2011 has been restored.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Title Suit no.451 of 2011 was instituted for the partition of the suit property at the instance of one Nanhu Mahto who has lost the suit land in S.A.R. Case No.1372 of 2001-2002 and in Title Suit No.300 of 2007. He submits that Title Suit No.451 of 2011 was dismissed for non-prosecution by the order dated 3.10.2018. He submits that the learned court has been pleased to restore the said suit by order dated 24.1.2023. According to him, in absence of any cogent reason, the said suit has been restored. He further submits that the person who has filed the suit has not appeared before the learned court. On this ground, he submits that restoration petition may kindly be dismissed.
5. Learned counsel for he Opposite parties submits that the learned court has given cogent reason and in view of that, the learned court has been pleased to restore the suit.
6. By order dated 24.01.2023, the learned court has been pleased to restore the said suit considering the evidence brought before the learned court to the effect that Sanicharwa Oraon (now dead) was not in a position to move 2 C.M.P. No. 323 of 2023 2025:JHHC:17457 as he was ailing and this fact has been brought by way of bringing on record medical prescriptions and other related documents. Pursuant to that the learned court has been pleased to restore the said suit.
7. For proving the same, two witnesses have been examined by the learned court and that has not been repudiated by the learned counsel for the petitioner before the learned court. On merit, the said suit has not been decided as yet and in light of Order IX Rule 9 CPC for the same prayer, the second suit is not maintainable. However, the Court finds that there is no illegality in the impugned order. As such, this petition is dismissed.
8. Dismissal of this petition will not prejudice the case of either of the parties.
9. Learned court will decide the said suit in accordance with law.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) SI/ 3 C.M.P. No. 323 of 2023