Jharkhand High Court
Vijay Kumar Singh vs Zahiruddin Ansari on 13 September, 2018
Author: Rajesh Kumar
Bench: Rajesh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Second Appeal No. 589 of 2016
...
1. Vijay Kumar Singh
2. Surendra Kumar Singh
3. Birendra Kumar Singh
4. Dharmendra Kumar Singh ....... .....Appellants Vrs.
1. Zahiruddin Ansari
2. Jawala Singh
3. Mithilesh Singh ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR For the Appellants : None.
For the Resps. :
......
05/13.09.2018 Nobody appears on behalf of the appellants.
On 20.08.2018, following order has been passed by this Court:
" The case has been filed on 22.10.2016. In spite of twice time granted by the Lawazima Board on 30.11.2016 and 03.03.2017, neither anybody appeared before the Lawazima Board nor defects have been removed till date. Thus, it appears that appellants are interested in keeping the matter defective.
However, with a view to give one more chance, two weeks' time is granted to the learned counsel for the appellants for removal of surviving defects.
If defects are not removed within two weeks, put up this case on 13.09. 2018 and on that day, the case may be dismissed."
In spite of two weeks' time granted on 20.08.2018, defects are still surviving.
Defects are as follows:
"1. Signature of learned counsel is missing in presentation form.
2. Date of decree signed in T. S. 87/07 may be given at aggrieved & prayer portion.
3. Name and designation of ld. P.O. of T.S. -87/07 may be corrected at aggrieved & prayer portion.
4. Case no. of title suit may be corrected at prayer portion.
5. Enrolment no. of ld. Counsel may be given in certificate.
6. A.F. of Rs. 10/ is short each on c.c. of Judt. Of T.A. -45/14 & T.S. -87/07.
7. A.F. of Rs. 15/- is short on C. C. of decree U/a
8. Synopsis may be filed.
9. Name of appellant no. 2 of C.C. of decree U/a is missing in memo.
10. Parentage of appellant no. 1 to 4 is missing in vak."
Another defects regarding deficit court fees of Rs. 220/-. The appellants are plaintiffs, who have lost before both the Courts -2- below.
The suit has been instituted for declaration that the sale deed no. 8584 dated 07.09.2007 executed by the defendant nos. 2 & 3 in favour of the defendant no. 1 is illegal, fake, sham bogus and void ab initio and without jurisdiction.
In view of the above fact, it is evident that the appellants are not interested in prosecuting the matter, rather interested in keeping the matter defective.
Since nobody appears on behalf of the appellants today, the instant Second Appeal is dismissed as not pressed.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.) Kamlesh/