Sukhdeo Mandal v. Rameshwar Mandal And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1808 of 2016 ====================================================== Sukhdeo Mandal, son of late Jamun Mandal, resident of Mohalla - Ali Nagar Mungroura; P.O. and P.S.- Jamalpur; District-Munger & Anr. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
Rameshwar Mandal and Ors ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ram Sevak Choudhary, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Pramod Kumar Sharma, Advocate Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocate Mr. Chetan Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ORAL ORDER 09-12-2021 The instant application stands filed for restoration of Second Appeal No. 243 of 1986, titled as Sukhdeo Mandal & Anr. vs. Rameshwar Mandal & Ors. which stood dismissed for want of prosecution, vide order dated 01.08.2014 , passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court.
The order dismissing the Second Appeal No. 243 of 1986, reads as under :- "In spite of repeated calls nobody has appeared on behalf of the appellants to press this appeal.
Mr. Pramod Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for respondent no.5 is present.
The appeal was called on 16.06.2014 when on the request of the counsel for the appellant this Court by way of last chance had adjourned consideration of the appeal.
Mr. Sinha informs the Court that
Patna High Court MJC No.1808 of 2016(8) dt.09-12-2021 2/2 respondent no.5 has already filed a suit for setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in Title Suit No. 13 of 1975 in which the appellants herein have already appeared.
Be that as it may, since nobody has appeared on calls to press this appeal, this Court is constrained to dismiss the same for non prosecution. I order accordingly."
Today, also it is not disputed that the facts stated (supra) are correct. That apart, the application does not disclose reasons sufficiently enough for the court to recall the order dated 01.08.2014.
The delay in filing the application is also not sufficiently explained. As such, the present application stands dismissed.
(Sanjay Karol, CJ) Ashwini/Sujit U