IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No.485 of 2022 ---- 1. Trilochan Dhobi, aged about 60 years, son of Late Karma Dhobi 2. Karma Dhobi, son of Late Damu Dhobi (Since deceased) 3. Satrughan Dhobi @ Satrughan Seth, aged about 64 years, Late Karma Dhobi 4. Chanchala Kumari, aged about 66 years, Daughter of Late Karma Dhobi All are resident of village-Nimdih, P.O. & P.S.-Sonahatu, Dist.-Ranchi 5. Phutulali, wife of Late Mohan Dhobi and Daughter of Karma Dhobi, Resident of village Gola, P.O. & P.S.-Gola, Dist.-Ranchi (since deceased) 6. Bitni Devi, aged about 65 years, wife of Buttan Dhobi & Daughter of Late Karma Dhobi, Resident of Village-Kurbahatu, P.O. Baredih & P.S.-Tamar, Dist.-Ranchi …. …. Petitioner(s) Versus 1. Ramapati Seth 2. Bimal Seth 3. Nirmal Seth All sons of late Srikant Seth, Resident of Village-Sonahatu, P.O. & P.S.- Sonahatu, Dist.-Ranchi …. …. Opposite Party(s) ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ---- For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, Adv. For the Opposite Party(s) : Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Adv. : Mr. Manish Kumar, Adv. ---- 05/Dated: 12th March, 2025 1. The present civil miscellaneous petition has been filed for restoration of S.A. No.249 of 2005 which was dismissed vide order dated 19.08.2010. 2. It appears that notice has been issued and all the parties have already appeared. 3. Order dated 19.08.2010 passed in S.A. No.249 of 2005 reads as under:- “Nobody appears on behalf of the appellants to press this appeal in spite of repeated calls. This appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.” 4. For restoring the same, the present petition has been filed on 10.08.2022. 5. It appears that in the meantime appellant No.2 has died on 29.04.2010 and appellant No.5 has died in the year 2008 itself but no substitution has been filed in the second appeal. 6. In the present case, an interlocutory application being I.A. No.4070 of 2023 has been filed for substitution. There is also an inordinate delay of 3628 days in preferring the present petition, I.A. No.4069 of 2023 has been filed for condoning the same. 7. Paragraph No.4 of I.A. No.4069 of 2023 is quoted hereinbelow:- “That both the conducting lawyers on behalf of appellants namely Afaque Ahmad and Nilkanth Mahto have already died since long and when the matter was taken up on 19.08.2010 no one appeared on behalf of the appellants, hence the instant S.A. No.249/2005 has been dismissed for non- prosecution and the order could not be communicated to these petitioners.” 8. Thus, this is nothing but a casual statement. The appellants were dead in the year 2008 and 2010 itself and no substitution has been filed. 9. Further, the delay has been explained declaring that conducting lawyers are dead although they are alive and they are appearing daily in the Court. 10. Facing with such situation, this Court has no other option but to dismiss the present civil miscellaneous petition. Accordingly, the same is, hereby, dismissed. 11. I.A. No.4069 of 2023 and I.A. No.4070 of 2023 also stands dismissed. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Shahid/- Uploaded -2- C.M.P. No.485 of 2022