IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Misc. Appeal No.665 of 2016 Anurag Jhawar son of Sri Arun Kumar Jhawar, Director of Chotanagpur Rope Works, Pvt. Ltd., residing at No.51/C Gariahat Road, P.O. & P.S. Ballygunge, Kolkata, temporary address at Ranchi C/o Chotanagpur Rope Works Pvt. Ltd., P.O. Mahilong, P.S. Tatisilwai, District Ranchi .... .... …. Appellant Versus 1. Sidharth Jhawar son of Sri Arun Kumar Jhawar, Director of Chotanagpur Rope Works, Pvt. Ltd., having its office and factor within the VIII- Arrah, P.O. Mahilong, P.S. Tatisilwai, District Ranchi residing at 2A, Sriniket, 14/9 Vasant Vihar, Kanke Road, Ranchi 2. Chotanagpur Rope Works Pvt. Ltd., having its registered office in “Namaskar” Ground Floor at 24-A, Anil Roy Road, Kolkata and Head Office and works at P.O. Mahilong, P.S. Tatisilwai, District Ranchi .... .... .... Respondents With Civil Revision No.49 of 2016 Anurag Jhawar son of Sri Arun Kumar Jhawar, Director of Chotanagpur Rope Works, Pvt. Ltd., residing at No.51/C Gariahat Road, P.O. & P.S. Ballygunge, Kolkata, temporary address at Ranchi C/o Chotanagpur Rope Works Pvt. Ltd., P.O. Mahilong, P.S. Tatisilwai, District Ranchi .... .... …. Appellant Versus 1. Sidharth Jhawar son of Sri Arun Kumar Jhawar, Director of Chotanagpur Rope Works, Pvt. Ltd., having its office and factor within the VIII- Arrah, P.O. Mahilong, P.S. Tatisilwai, District Ranchi residing at 2A, Sriniket, 14/9 Vasant Vihar, Kanke Road, Ranchi 2. Chotanagpur Rope Works Pvt. Ltd., having its registered office in “Namaskar” Ground Floor at 24-A, Anil Roy Road, Kolkata and Head Office and works at P.O. Mahilong, P.S. Tatisilwai, District Ranchi .... .... .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Appellant : Mr. Shusbham Kataruka, Advocate Ms. Khushboo Kataruka, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Nitin Kumar Pasari, Advocate ------ Order No.07 / Dated :02.04.2025 It is submitted by learned counsel on behalf of appellant/defendant no.1 in M.A. No.665 of 2016 that the matter has become infructuous as the suit from which the appeal has been preferred, has already been dismissed for default by the learned trial Court. Learned counsel, Mr. Nitin Kumar Pasari appearing on behalf of plaintiff/respondents herein, does not dispute the factual submission advanced on behalf of appellant/defendant no.1. Under the circumstance, both these cases are dismissed as infructuous. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Anit