Jharkhand High Court
Karam Mahto & Anr vs Shiv Tahal Mahto & Ors on 14 September, 2016
Author: Shree Chandrashekhar
Bench: Shree Chandrashekhar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
C.M.P. No. 302 of 2009
1. Karan Mahto, S/o Harkhu Mahto
2. Deochand Mahto, S/o Moti Mahto
Both residents of village & P.O. Telo, PSNawadih, DistrictBokaro
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. Shiv Tahal Mahto, S/o Pali Mahto, Telo, Nawadih, Bokaro
2. Suresh Prasad, S/o Sri Baldeo Sao
3. Sudhir Prasad, S/o Sri Baldeo Sao
4. Bhagwan Das, S/o Late Prasadi Sao
5. Most. Rukmini Devi, W/o Late Baldeo Sao
6. Most. Shanti Devi, daughter of Late Baldeo Sao,
W/oBhagwan Das Gupta
Sl. No. 2 to 6 are residents of village&PO:Telo, PSNawadih,
DistrictBokaro ... ... Opposite Parties
-----------------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
For the Petitioners : Mr. Vishal Kumar Tiwary, Advocate
For the O.P. No. 1 : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate
14/14.09.2016I.A. No. 1243 of 2016 Notice in the main application was issued on 27.01.2015, however, later on it transpired that opposite party nos. 4 and 5 had died in the meantime and therefore, the applicants filed application for substitution being I.A. No. 1243 of 2016, in which notices were issued on 03.03.2016.
2. Mr. Atanu Banerjee, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the opposite party no. 1.
3. Office note dated 09.08.2016 discloses that notices have been properly and validly served upon other opposite parties including proposed opposite parties.
4. In support of this application, applicant no. 1 has filed his affidavit. Since, oppositeparty nos. 4 & 5 have died, their legal heirs are required to be brought on record. For the reasons disclosed by the applicants, I.A. No. 1243 of 2016 is allowed. Let necessary correction be done, within four weeks in the memo of parties.
2 C.M.P. No. 302 of 2009
1. It appears that S.A. No. 68 of 2008 was listed under the heading "For Orders" on 30.07.2009 when one week's time was granted to the applicants for filing requisites etc. for service of notice in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
2. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that due to mistake of the clerk of the conducting counsel, requisites etc. could not be filed within time and consequently, S.A. No. 68 of 2008 stood dismissed for noncompliance of order dated 30.07.2009.
3. Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel for opposite party no. 1 though opposes the instant applicant for restoration of S.A. No. 68 of 2008, however, to a pointed query from the Court whether for the fault of the clerk of the conducting counsel a litigant should suffer, he has no answer.
4. C.M.P. No. 302 of 2009 is allowed and consequently, S.A. No. 68 of 2008 is restored to its original file.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) Tanuj