Back
2018 Supreme(Jhk) 2615
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Shree Chandrashekhar, J.
Shiv Narayan Paswan, Son Of Late Lakhan Paswan - Appellant
Versus
Bandey Singh - Respondent
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 921 of 2017
Decided On : 10-10-2018
Satish Kr Ughal, Adv., J.F. Toppo, Adv.
Lack of evidence of authorization for representation and negligence can lead to dismissal of restoration cases.
Headnote:
Restoration - Title Suit - The court affirmed the dismissal of the restoration case for Title Suit No.21 of 1998 due to the plaintiff's negligence and lack of evidence of authorization for representation.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a miscellaneous case for restoration of Title Suit No.21 of 1998 after it was dismissed in default due to negligence. The plaintiff's son sought substitution after the plaintiff's death, but the appellate court found no evidence of authorization for representation.
Finding of the Court:
The court affirmed the dismissal of the restoration case, stating that there was no evidence of authorization for representation by the plaintiff's son.
Issues: Negligence in restoration case, authorization for representation
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lack of evidence of authorization for representation and the plaintiff's negligence in pursuing the restoration case.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, but it was left open for the villagers of village Pashnaur to prosecute the appeal, subject to the law of limitation.
JUDGMENT
Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - The petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 26.09.2016 passed in Misc. Appeal No.03 of 2010 by which the appellate court has affirmed order dated 03.02.2010 passed in Misc. Case No.06 of 2008; the miscellaneous case was filed for restoration of Title Suit No.21 of 1998.
2. Title Suit No.21 of 1998 was instituted by Lakhan Paswan in a representative capacity on behalf of the villagers of the village Pashnaur. During pendency of the suit an application under Order XXII Rule 4 CPC was allowed and the plaintiff was granted one week''s time for taking steps in the matter, however, inspite of further opportunities granted, the plaintiff did not take steps in the matter and consequently the suit was dismissed in default. Seeking restoration of the suit to its original file, Misc. Case No.06 of 2008 was filed. The learned trial Judge holding that the plaintiff was negligent dismissed Misc. Case No.06 of 2008. Against this order the plaintiff has preferred Misc. Appeal No.03 of 2010. During pendency of the appeal, the plaintiff died and his son, who is the petitioner, filed an application for his substitution. The appellate court has held that there is no evidence on record which would establish that the plaintiff''s son has been authorised by the members of the panchayat to represent the entire village and prosecute Misc. Appeal No.03 of 2010. That being a finding of fact, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 26.09.2016 and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed, however, it shall remain open for the villagers of village Pashnaur to prosecute Misc. Appeal No.03 of 2010, subject to the law of limitation.
