Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RAJESH SHANKAR, J.
Lal Pravir Nath Shahdeo – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. interlocutory applications dismissed as not pressed (Para 1 , 3 , 5) |
| 2. interlocutory application dismissed as infructuous (Para 7 , 8) |
| 3. intervention applications allowed without parties (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. clarification of order granted (Para 14 , 16) |
| 5. court schedules further proceedings for admission. (Para 18) |
| 6. time extension granted for counter affidavit (Para 19 , 20) |
Order :
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
I.A. No. 2456 of 2014 in W.P.(C) No. 4304 of 2013
Mr. Lal Vikram Nath Shahdeo, learned counsel for the applicants, does not press the present interlocutory application with liberty to the applicants to file a fresh one.
2. I.A. No. 2456 of 2014 is dismissed as not pressed with aforesaid liberty.
I.A. No. 5202 of 2021 in W.P.(C) No. 5304 of 2013
3. Mr. S.G. Raman, learned counsel for the applicants, does not press the present interlocutory application.
4. I.A. No. 5202 of 2021 is accordingly dismissed as not pressed.
I.A. No. 7746 of 2022 in W.P.(C) No. 5304 of 2013
5. Mr. Bhaiya V. Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the present interlocutory application has inadvertently been filed to substitute the applicant with his father namely Thakur Navin Nath Sh
Court emphasizes procedural fairness in adjudicating multiple writ petitions, allowing interventions and extensions for filing affidavits.
Legal heirs have the right to intervene in ongoing proceedings to ensure proper representation.
Procedural laws must facilitate justice, allowing parties to participate in legal processes, and should not be construed to deny such participation.
Consistency in the assignment of bail applications arising from the same FIR must be maintained to avoid judicial discrepancies.
Substitution of parties in ongoing litigation is valid when consented by surviving parties, ensuring procedural compliance for representation of deceased respondents.
Point of Law : Mere aberration of the procedural rules, which is nothing but a handmaid of justice, would not entail dismissal and/or rejection of the interlocutory application.
The court ruled that a writ petition, once withdrawn, cannot be restored after substantial delay unless justified, viewing such attempts as an abuse of the court's process.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
