Jharkhand High Court
Bishnu Bauri vs Haradhan Dome And Ors on 14 September, 2016
Author: Shree Chandrashekhar
Bench: Shree Chandrashekhar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
C.M.P. No. 63 of 2015
.......
BISHNU BAURI SON OF LATE SONA RAM BAURI, RESIDENT OF VILL
SILPHORE, TOLA BELATAND, PS CHANDANKIYARI,
. ... ...PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. HARADHAN DOME
2. NAKUL DOME
BOTH SONS OF LATE CHUTU DOME
3. BALIKA DEVI WIDOW OF LATE GOUR DOME
4. GANGA KALINDI
5. UTTAM KALINDI
6. RAM PRAKASH KALINDI
ALL SONS OF LATE GOUR DOME, RESIDENT OF VILL SILPHORE, TOLA
BELTAND, PS CHANDANKIARI, DIST BOKARO
7. LAKHI KALINDI DAUGHTER OF LATE GOUR DOME AND WIFE OF
PHATIK KALINDI, RESIDENT OF VILL KALYANPUR, PS BALIAPUR, DIST
DHANBAD
8. SARAMA KALINDI DAUGHTER OF LATE GOUR DOME AND WIFE OF
TARAPADA KALINDI, RESIDENT OF VILL BARADAHA, PS BALIAPUR,
DIST DHANBAD
9. SMT SULOCHANA BAURIN DAUGHTER OF LATE BANAMALI BAURI
AND WIFE OF RAMESHWAR BAURI
10. SATYA KINKAR BAURI
11. BHUVAN BAURI
BOTH SONS OF LATE MANU BAURI, RESIDENT OF VILL SILPHORE,
TOLA BELTAND, PS CHANDANKIARI, DIST BOKARO
12. SMT MALATI BAURIN DAUGHTER OF LATE NITAI BAURI WIFE OF
SONA RAM BAURI, RESIDENT OF VILL SILPHORE, TOLA BELTAND, PS
CHANDANKIARI, DIST BOKARO
13. SATYA BAURI
14. SUBHASH BAURI
BOTH SONS OF LATE SONA RAM BAURI, RESIDENT OF VILL SILPHORE,
TOLA BELTAND, PS CHANDANKIARI, DIST BOKARO
15. SMT KAJALA BAURIN DAUGHTER OF LATE SONA RAM BAURI,
WIDOW OF LATE MIHIR BAURI, RESIDENT OF VILL AMLABAD, PS
CHANDANKIARI, DIST BOKARO
16. SMT SANDHYA BAURIN DAUGHTER OF LATE SONA RAM BAURI,
WIFE OF GOPAL BAURI, RESIDENT OF VILL AND PS GOVINDPUR, DIST
DHANBAD
17. SMT JOSHNA BAURIN DAUGHTER OF LATE SONA RAM BAURI, WIFE
OF BHAVANI BAURI, RESIDENT OF VILL BHAJUDIH, PS
CHANDANKIARI, DIST BOKARO .. ... RESPONDENTS
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
For the Petitioner : Mr. P.K. Mukhopadhyay, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Pradeep Kr. Nayak, Advocate
...........
2
04/14.09.2016 I.A. No.2133 of 2015 This application has been filed for condonation of delay of 2319 days in filing application for restoration of S.A. No.100 of 2003.
2. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that respondent nos.1, 2, 9, 11 and 12 have died.
3. It needs to be noticed that alongwith C.M.P. No.63 of 2015 which was filed for restoration of S.A. No.100 of 2003 which stood dismissed on account of peremptory order dated 25.08.2008 which was not complied with by the appellant/applicant, I.A. No.2133 of 2015 has been filed for condonation of delay of 2319 days in filing C.M.P. No.63 of 2015. In the said application, that is, C.M.P. No.63 of 2015 the Court has yet not issued notice. The reason disclosed by the applicant for not preferring the application for restoration for more than six and half years is that the conducting counsel did not inform dismissal of S.A. No.100 of 2003 and subsequently, the applicant engaged another counsel. The applicant has averred as under:
7. "That the petitioner most humbly states that his counsel did not inform him about the dismissal of his appeal for default vide order dated 09.09.2008.
8. That however, the petitioner came to his lawyer to know about his case in the month of December, 2014 and he finally could know about the dismissal of the case for default.3
9. That the petitioner has taken back the file from his lawyer and engaged another lawyer and thus filed petition for restoration vide C.M.P. No.63 of 2015.
10. That the office pointed out that the limitation expired on 15.10.2008 and the present C.M.P. stands barred by limitation by 2319 days."
4. Besides the above, no other reason has been disclosed by the applicant for not preferring an application for restoration for long six and half years. For all these years the applicant did not try to contact his counsel and he definitely was not vigilant. Considering the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to entertain the prayer for adjournment for filing application for substitution of respondent nos.1, 2, 9, 11 and 12.
5. The instant application for condonation of delay is dismissed and consequently, C.M.P. No.63 of 2015 stands dismissed.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) R.K.