[2025:JHHC:36501]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No.614 of 2024 ------

1. Punai Oraon aged about 64 years

2. Koje Oraon aged about 40 years Both sons of Late Budhu @ Budhwa Oraon Resident of village Bantoli under P.O. Bharno PS Bharno District Gumla … Petitioners Versus

1. Budhni Oraon W/o Late Mangroo Oraon

2. Marwari Oraon

3. Bartu Oraon

4. Ganga Oraon All sons of Late Mangroo Oraon R/o Khuntitoli under P.O.

and P.S. Bero District Ranchi

5. Charia Orain W/O Poto Oraon R/O Khuntitoli under P.O. and P.S. Bero District Ranchi

6. Deputy Commissioner Gumla under P.O. and P.S. Gumla District Gumla … Opposite Parties ------

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------

For the Petitioners : Mr. Ashok Kr. Pandey, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Jayant Franklin Toppo, GA V Ms. Moushmi Chatterjee, AC to GA V Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate ------

Order No:-04 Dated-05-12-2025 I.A. No.11340 of 2024 Heard the parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this interlocutory application has been filed with the prayer to condone the delay of 589 days in filing the instant C.M.P. It is further submitted that this C.M.P. has been filed for readmission of the Second Appeal No.194 of 2014 to its original file. It is next submitted that in the said appeal, time was allowed to the appellants subject to payment of cost of Rs.1,000/- by the appellants to the respondents through their counsel appearing in the record within six weeks from 05.09.2022 when time was granted. It is further submitted that though the petitioner paid the said cost but the receipt of the payment of the said cost was filed on

18.10.2022 instead of being deposited on 17.10.2022 and since the proof of payment of cost was filed, the petitioners/appellants were under the impression that the said Second Appeal is still continuing but in August, 2024 when the petitioners came to Ranchi to know the up-to-date status and stage of hearing of the case then only it could be known that the said Second Appeal No.194 of 2014 has been dismissed on 17.10.2022 but by that time, the delay had already occurred. It is next submitted that the delay caused in filing the instant C.M.P. is neither deliberate nor intentional. It is next submitted that the petitioners have very good grounds to agitate in the said Second Appeal No.194 of 2014 and unless the delay in filing the instant C.M.P. is condoned, the petitioners will be highly prejudiced. Hence, it is submitted that the delay of

589 days in filing the instant C.M.P., be condoned.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay of 589 days in filing the instant C.M.P. is condoned.

Accordingly, this interlocutory application stands allowed.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.

C.M.P. No.614 of 2024 This civil miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioners with the prayer for readmission of Second Appeal No.194 of 2014 to its original file which stood dismissed for non-compliance of the peremptory order dated

05.09.2022 passed by this Court.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Second Appeal No.194 of 2014 stood dismissed for non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 05.09.2022 passed by this Court to file the proof of payment of cost of Rs.1,000/- by the appellants to the respondents through their counsel appearing in the record within six weeks from 05.09.2022. It is further submitted that the petitioners paid the said cost and the receipt of the payment of the said cost was filed on 18.10.2022 instead of being deposited on 17.10.2022 and by that time the said peremptory time had already expired which resulted in dismissal of the said Second Appeal No.194 of 2014 for non-compliance of the said peremptory order dated 05.09.2022 passed by this Court. It is next submitted that non-compliance of the said peremptory order dated 05.09.2022 within the stipulated time, was neither deliberate nor intentional. It is also submitted that the petitioners have very good grounds to agitate in the said