Md. Khurshid Ahmad v. Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2553 of 2022 In Miscellaneous Appeal No.416 of 2012 ====================================================== Md. Khurshid Ahmad son of Late Abdul Walkil resident of village Kormathu, P.O. Shyam Nagar Neema, P.S. Amas, Dist.- Gaya. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. 2nd Floor, R.J. Place, Rai Kashinath More, Gandhi Maidan, P.S. and Dist. Gaya (Bihar). 2.

Sumitra Devi wife of late Sunil Mistri resident of village Kormathu, P.O. Shyam Nagar Neema, P.S. Amas, District- Gaya. 3.

Amit Kumar s/o late Sunil Mistri Respondent no. 3 is minor and under the guardianship of his mother natural guardian. resident of village Kormathu, P.O. Shyam Nagar Neema, P.S. Amas, District- Gaya. 4.

Kamla Devi w/o Kishore Mistri resident of village Kormathu, P.O. Shyam Nagar Neema, P.S. Amas, District- Gaya.

5.

Kishore Mistri s/o Budhu Mistri resident of village Kormathu, P.O. Shyam Nagar Neema, P.S. Amas, District- Gaya.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Shailendra Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Durgesh Kumar Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 25-07-2024 Heard the parties.

2. The present petition has been preferred for restoration of M.A. No. 416 of 2012 which was dismissed for non-compliance of the order dated 14.05.2014.

3. 3. On 14.05.2014, a coordinate bench passed the following order in M.A. No. 417 of 2012:

"Time till two weeks after annual vacation is allowed to ascertain as to

Patna High Court MJC No.2553 of 2022(3) dt.25-07-2024 2/2 whether the award has been prepared, if prepared to file the same.

In the meantime, the statutory amount will be deposited, failing which this appeal shall stand dismissed without further reference to a Bench".

4. As the same was not complied, it stood rejected on 30.6.2014 and there is nothing on record to show whether the amount was ever deposited or not.

5. The peremptory order was passed in the year 2014 and eight years later, the present petition without any information of depositing the statutory amount has been filed.

6. In that background, the MJC No. 2553 of 2022 is rejected.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Ravi/- U