2025:JHHC:20942 Page | 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Second Appeal No.347 of 2004 1. Stanislas Munda S/o Abhiram Munda. 2. Mikhail Munda, Son of Late Turu Munda. 3. Iganatius Munda Son of Yakub Munda. 4. Markus Munda 5. Sudhir Munda Appellant Nos.4 and 5 are minor sons of Late Boas Munda are under case and they are being through mother and guardian Smt. Sosan @ Sushanti Coremela. 6. Smt. Sosan @ Smt. Sushanti Gormela. 7. Francis Munda son of Gansu Munda. 8. Thomas Munda Son of Labya Munda, 9. Rakhal Munda son of Late Sukhram Munda. 10. Anthony Pahan Son of late Mansidh Pahan. 11. Antur Pahan Son of Late Juseph Pahan. 12. Markas Pahan Son of Yakub Pahan. 13. Zacharia Pahan son of late Dimbu Pahan 14. Sushil Munda Son of late Anand Mashi Munda. 15. Riyang Munda Son of late Boya Munda. All resident of village Guphu, P.O. & P.S. Torpa, District- Ranchi. … Plaintiffs /Respondents/Appellants Versus 1. Malu Singh. Son of Late Mahendra Singh, residents of Village- Ghuphu, P.S. Torpa, District- Ranchi. 2. Ghura Ganju son of Late Mahadeop Ganjhu. 3. Rampat Ganjhu son of late Laldeo Ganjhu. All residents of Village- Kumang, P.S. Torpa, District- Ranchi. … Defendants/ Appellants/ Respondents 4. Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi. … Defendants/ Appellants/ Respondents 5. Kande Munda Son of Late Birsa Munda. 6. Saihun Munda son of Birsa Munda. … Respondents Coram:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA For the Appellants : None. For the Respondents : None. Order No.19/Dated- 29th July, 2025 1. None appears on behalf of the appellants as well as respondents. 2. It appears that appellants have earlier taken time to file substitution application in respect of deceased respondent no.1, 2025:JHHC:20942 Page | 2 but the direction is not complied with. It further appears that appeal stood rejected on 10.09.2013 against the respondent nos. 1, 12, 14, 16 and 17 due to non-compliance of the preemptory order dated 27.08.2013. It also appears that vide order dated 21.06.2022, the appeal has been abated in respect of Respondent nos. 3, 4, 5, 8, 9 and 10 as no substitution application was filed by the appellant to add the legal representative of above deceased respondents. Therefore, it is obvious that appellants have lost zeal to prosecute this appeal. 3. Hence, this appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Amar/ Uploaded