2025:JHHC:16205-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 297 of 2025 --- 1. Gitasree Pandey, wife of Late Atindra Chandra Pandey 2. Suchitra Pandey, wife of Lokendra Chandra Pandey 3. Asimendra Chandra Pandey, son of Late Bhupendra Chandra Pandey 4. Somark Chandra Pandey, son of Late Bhupendra Chandra Pandey 5. Madhulata Pandey, wife of Late Purnendu Chandra Pandey 6. Rajiv Chandra Pandey, son of Late Bhupendra Chandra Pandey All are residents of Village- Pakur, 75- Sai Aloya, Choti Raj Bari, P.O. & P.S.- Pakur, District- Pakur … … Appellants Versus 1. The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) through the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur 2. Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Pakur 4. Ashok Kumar, son of Late Dayal Das 5. Harish Kumar, son of Late Dayal Das 6. Tara Chand, wife of Late Master Sundar Das 7. Sanjay Kumar, son of Late Master Sundar Das 8. Sunita Devi, daughter of Late Master Sundar Das 9. Kavita Devi, daughter of Late Master Sundar Das Sl. Nos. 4 to 9 are residents of Harind Ganga Bazar, Pakur, P.O. & P.S.- Pakur, District- Pakur 10. Anil Tiwari 11. Babban Tiwari, son of Late Sadhan Lal Madhyan 12. Smt. Anita Kumari, daughter of Late Sadhan Lal Madhyan 13. Smt. Sarla Devi, daughter of Late Sadhan Lal Madhyan Sl. Nos. 10 to 13 are residents of Sindhi Para, P.O., P.S. & District- Pakur …. … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --- For the Appellants : Mr. Akhouri Prakhar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Aniket Rohan, Advocate For the Resp. Nos. 1 to 3 : Mr. Jai Prakash, A.A.G.-IA Mr. Amitesh Geasen, AC to AC to AAG-IA For the Resp. Nos. 4 to 9 : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate --- Reserved on 17.06.2025 Pronounced on 20.06.2025 Per : Rajesh Shankar, J. : The present appeal is directed against the order dated 30.07.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 3818 of 2010 whereby I.A No. 161 of 2024 filed for substitution of heirs/ 2025:JHHC:16205-DB 2 legal representatives of the sole petitioner of the said writ petition namely Bhupendra Chandra Pandey and I.A No. 162 of 2024 filed for condonation of delay of about 1728 days in filing the substitution petition, have been dismissed and consequently W.P.(C) No. 3818 of 2010 has also been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 3818 of 2010 was filed for quashing the order dated 28.05.2008 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka (the respondent no. 2) in Revenue Misc. Revision No. 377 of 1984-85 whereby the said revision petition filed by the sole petitioner namely Bhupendra Chandra Pandey (since deceased) was dismissed. Moreover, the respondent no. 2 also quashed the orders of settlement of the land in question passed by the respondent nos. 3 and 1 in favour of the predecessors-in- interest of the respondent nos. 4 to 9. 3. It is further submitted that when the aforesaid writ petition was listed after a long time, the conducting counsel tried to contact the petitioner, however he could not contact him. Subsequently, few letters were also sent at the address of the petitioner whereafter his heirs could know about the pending litigation. The heirs thereafter contacted the conducting counsel and informed that the petitioner had died on 10.04.2016. Thereafter, I.A No. 161 of 2024 was filed for substitution of legal heirs of the deceased petitioner and I.A No. 162 of 2024 was filed for condonation of delay of about 1728 days in filing the substitution petition. 4. It is also submitted that the said interlocutory applications were dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 30.07.2024 2025:JHHC:16205-DB 3 observing that there was inordinate delay of 1728 days in filing the substitution petition as well as no reason was assigned for such a huge delay. Consequently, the said writ petition was also dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the learned Single Judge should have appreciated that the appellants had given sufficient explanation for condonation of delay of 1728 days in I.A. No. 162 of 2024 and as such the said interlocutory application was required to be considered liberally. 6. It is also argued that on the one hand, the learned Single Judge has dismissed W.P.(C) No. 3818 of 2010, however on the other hand, W.P.(C) No. 3543 of 2008 filed by the predecessors of the respondent nos. 4 to 9 against the order dated 28.05.2008 passed by the respondent no. 2 in which the deceased petitioner was arrayed as the respondent no. 5, has been admitted. In such circumstance, the appellants will suffer irreparable loss and injury if they are not allowed to be substituted. 7. Learned counsel for the contesting private respondent nos. 4 to 9 submits that W.P.(C) No. 3818 of 2010 was tagged with W.P.(C) No. 3543 of 2008 and both the cases were taken up on several occasions, however the counsel appearing for the deceased petitioner never informed the Court about the death of the petitioner and after a huge delay of 1728 days, I..A No. 161 of 2024 was filed by the heirs of the deceased petitioner for their substitution in the case and I.A. No. 162 of 2024 was filed for condoning the delay of 1728 days in filing the substitution petition which were rightly dismissed by the learned Single Judge observing that no ground for condoning the inordinate delay in filing substitution petition was 2025:JHHC:16205-DB 4 assigned. 8. It is further submitted that rule 99 of the High Court of Jharkhand Rules, 2001 provides that whenever any party to a proceeding pending in the Court dies and an application is filed for bringing on record the legal representatives of said party, such application shall be dealt with and disposed of in accordance with the procedure prescribed and contained in Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure and to that extent, the provisions of this Order XXII of C.P.C. shall mutatis mutandis apply to all such proceedings. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 10. The short question falls for consideration of this Court is as to whether the delay of 1728 days in filing the substitution petition seeking substitution of legal representatives of the writ petitioner was required to be condoned by the learned Single Judge in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 11. Thrust of the argument of learned counsel for the appellants is that the appellants came to know about the pendency of W.P.(C) No. 3818 of 2010 only after receiving the letters from the conducting counsel. Thereafter, they informed the conducting counsel about death of the writ petitioner and due to the said reason, the delay of about 1728 days occurred in filing the substitution petition. 12. We have perused the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Sharafat Hussain (dead) through LRs & Others Vs. Mohd. Shafiq & Others reported in (1996) 10 SCC 253 wherein after death of the sole appellant on 01.12.1990, the application for substitution could not be filed due to the delay 2025:JHHC:16205-DB 5 occurring on the part of the counsel appearing for the deceased- appellant as sworn in by him in his affidavit. Consequently, the appeal having been abated was dismissed on 18.11.1991. The heirs/legal representatives of the deceased appellant filed application on 04.05.1992 for setting aside the abatement, condonation of the delay in filing the application and to bring the legal representatives of the sole appellant on record. The said application was dismissed by the High Court, however the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal by setting aside the abatement as well as condoning the delay in bringing the legal representatives of the deceased appellant on record by holding that the delay had occurred since the counsel appearing for the deceased sole appellant could not communicate the legal representatives regarding the information furnished by the respondents about the death and that the legal representatives obviously were not aware of the appeal filed by their father; that resulted in abatement for not bringing the legal representatives on record. 13. It is a settled principle of law that the writ courts have discretion to condone the delay in filing of substitution petition in the given facts and circumstances of the case to do the substantial justice between the parties if the delay is properly explained and if there is no negligence or inaction on the part of the aggrieved party. 14. The Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra (Dead) by LRs and Others Vs. Pramod Gupta (Smt) (dead) by LRs and Others reported in (2003) 3 SCC 272, has held that laws of procedure are meant to regulate effectively, assist and aid the object of doing substantial 2025:JHHC:16205-DB 6 and real justice and not to foreclose an adjudication on merits of substantial rights of citizen under personal, property and other laws. Procedure has always been viewed as the handmaid of justice and not meant to hamper the cause of justice or sanctify miscarriage of justice. It has further been held that a careful reading of the provisions contained in Order XXII C.P.C. as well as the subsequent amendments thereto would lend credit and support to the view that those were devised to ensure their continuation and culmination in an effective adjudication and not to retard the further progress of the proceedings and thereby non-suit the others similarly placed as long as their distinct and independent rights to property or any claim remain intact and not lost forever due to the death of one or the other in the proceedings. The provisions contained in Order XXII of C.P.C. are not be construed as a rigid matter of principle but must ever be viewed as a flexible tool of convenience in the administration of justice. 15. In the present case also, the legal representatives of the deceased petitioner were not aware of the filing of the writ petition and they informed about the death of the petitioner to the conducting counsel after receiving his letters and thereafter the petition for substitution was filed. Thus, it appears that the delay in filing the substitution petition was not intentional and the same was required to be condoned by the learned Single Judge to do the conscionable justice to the appellants. 16. That apart, the writ petitioner was claiming his right, title and interest over the land in question on the ground that the same was acquired under section 25 ’A’ of the Rent Regulation 2 of 1886 in the 2025:JHHC:16205-DB 7 year 1912-13 and after the said acquisition, the provisions of Santhal Parganas Tenancy Act, 1949 have no application on the said land as it is a private land of the ex-intermediary. Thus, looking to the nature of the dispute, we are of the opinion that the appellants will suffer irreparable loss and injury if they are not substituted as petitioners in the writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 3818 of 2010. 17. In our view, there is sufficient reason for condoning delay and allowing substitution taking into account the facts and circumstances of this case. Having regard to the cumulative effect of all these facts, we are satisfied that the appellants have made out a sufficient case for condoning the delay in seeking substitution. 18. We, accordingly, set aside the order dated 30.07.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No. 3818 of 2010. The appellants are allowed to be substituted as writ petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 3818 of 2010 subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the contesting private respondent nos. 4 to 9 within six weeks. The writ petition is remanded to the learned Single Judge to hear the matter on merit. 19. The appeal is allowed with the aforesaid observations. (M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) A.F.R. Ritesh/