IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Second Appeal No. 55 of 2003 Smt. Swatantri Devi, wife of Parmeshwar Mahto, resident of village and P.O. Dipauwa, P.S. Patan, Dist. Palamau … …Defendant/Appellant/Appellant Versus

1. Kanti Devi, wife of Shri Bhola Prasad resident of village-Khajuri, P.S. Patan, P.O. Dipauwa, Dist. Palamau

2. Smt. Radhika Devi wife of Madan Mohan Sahay (deleted v.o.d.

25.01.2018)

3. Shri Ashok Kumar @ Muna Lal, son of Late Madan Mohan Sahay, nos. 2 and 3 are of village-Khajuria, P.O. Dipauwa, Tola Bahartand, P.S. Patan, Dist. Palamau

4. Smt. Asha Devi, wife of Ramesh Prasad, at and P.O. Banjari, PS.

Rohtas, Dist. Rohtas

5. Smt. Sarmanti Devi wife of Mahendra Prasad, village Manhi, P.O.

and P.S. Najarutani, Dist. Garhwa

6. Smt. Usha Devi, wife of Awadh Kumar Sinha, her husband working as Asst. in the State Bank of India, Ranchi, Court Branch, Ranchi … Plaintiffs/Respondents/Respondents ---

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---

For the Appellants : Mr. Kushal Kumar, Advocate : Ms. Apurva Mehta, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Amaresh Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Advita Arya, Advocate ---

27/22.01.2026 The learned counsel for the parties are present. 2. I.A. No. 5045 of 2024 has been filed for substitution of respondent nos. 1 and 5 who are said to have expired as back as on

05.07.2020 and 23.05.2005 respectively.

3. A separate I.A. being I.A. No. 8417 of 2024 has been filed for setting aside abatement of respondent no. 1 and 5 and for condonation of delay.

4. Further I.A. No. 5060 of 2024 has been filed for substitution of the appellant who is said to have expired on 08.11.2018.

5. I.A. No. 8416 of 2024 has been filed for condonation of delay in filing the substitution petition of the sole appellant.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the second appeal was dismissed for default on 31.03.2018 and a petition for restoration was filed through CMP No. 302 of 2018 on 09.07.2018.

The learned counsel has submitted that ultimately the appeal was restored vide order dated 15.03.2024 and thereafter a prayer for substitution has been made in the present case. The learned counsel submits that since the appeal stood dismissed for default, there has been delay in filing the petition seeking substitution.

7. The learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the prayer and has submitted that the sole appellant who was the sole petitioner in the petition seeking restoration of second appeal , that is, CMP No. 302 of 2018 had expired during the pendency of the CMP and opposite party no. 1 of the C.M.P. had also expired during the pendency of the C.M.P. on 05.07.2020 and so far as respondent no. 5 in the appeal is concerned, she had expired much prior to filing of the petition for restoration i.e. expired on 23.05.2005. He submits that this is apparent from the interlocutory application filed by the appellant.

8. The learned counsel has further submitted that at the time of disposal of the petition for restoration, the sole petitioner had also expired including the fact that the opposite party no. 1(respondent no. 1 in the appeal) and opposite party no. 4 (respondent no. 5 in the appeal) had also expired but without substituting them, the restoration application was allowed. The learned has also submitted that the petitioner in CMP had also filed I.A. No. 960 of 2020 for substitution of the sole petitioner and I.A. No. 8694 of 2022 seeking condonation of delay and setting aside abatement but the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 08.12.2023 and neither any liberty was reserved to file any fresh petition nor any fresh petition was filed. He has submitted that by the said order dated 08.12.2023, it was recorded that the CMP was abated as against opposite party no. 4, but no petition for substitution was filed in the CMP and in the present proceeding also, no petition for substitution of respondent no. 4 has been filed.

9. The learned counsel submits that the order restoring the seco