(2025:JHHC:19894) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No.1283 of 2023 ------ Smt. Gangia Devi aged about 73 years wife of Sri Ramdas Sao resident of Village Gomia, P.O. and P.S. Gomia District Bokaro. … Petitioner Versus Smt. Sonia Devi Wife of Sri Lalo Sao resident of Village Gomia, P.O. and P.S. Gomia District Bokaro. … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Kundan Kumar Ambastha, Advocate Md. Abdul Wahaf, Advocate ------ Order No:-06 Dated:-18-07-2025 Heard the parties. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Order XLI Rule 21 read with Order XLII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rehearing the Second Appeal No.272 of 2015 in the light of the observation and direction of the order dated 18.09.2023 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.(s) 36665 of 2023. The brief fact of the case is that Second Appeal No.272 of 2015 came up for hearing before this Court on 27th April, 2023, wherein though notice has validly been served upon the respondent yet no one turned up on behalf of the respondent, in spite of repeated calls. Hence, the Second Appeal No.272 of 2015 was heard and disposed of ex-parte against the respondent on the same day i.e. on 27th April, 2023. The Second Appeal was decreed ex-parte. The respondent instead of filing any petition under Order XLI Rule 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure before this Court, filed Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.(s) 36665 of 2023 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide order dated 18.09.2023 observed that the petitioner has a remedy for applying for rehearing of Second Appeal No.272 of 2015, before this court, under Rule 21 of Order XLI read with Rule 1 of Order (2025:JHHC:19894) 2 XLII of the Code of Civil Procedure and by keeping the said remedy open, disposed of the Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.(s) 36665 of 2023 for the petitioner to again approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India for challenging the impugned order in case, the application for setting aside the ex- parte decree in the Second Appeal is rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner of this Civil Miscellaneous Petition who was the respondent of the Second Appeal No.272 of 2015 submits that the petitioner-respondent was served with the notice of the Second Appeal No.272 of 2015 but she being an old woman of about 73 years and as she was not having sufficient money to engage any counsel to appear before this Court on her behalf; hence she could not appear before this court, when the said second appeal was called on for hearing. It is next submitted that the husband of the petitioner is a rickshaw puller having no regular source of income. It is then submitted that the petitioner and her husband both are old aged and infirm persons who could not come to Ranchi, for engaging any counsel on her behalf, therefore, the Second Appeal No.272 of 2015 was heard ex-parte. It is then submitted that the petitioner was thus prevented by sufficient cause from appearing before this Court when the Second Appeal was taken up for hearing ex-parte. It is next submitted that as the counsel advised the petitioner that the only remedy which is available to her, is filing Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, hence, the petitioner after borrowing money from her relatives and neighbours, filed the Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.(s) 36665 of 2023. It is further submitted that the petitioner shall suffer substantial loss and irreparable injury, if the Second Appeal is not heard afresh; as prayed for in her petition. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Civil Miscellaneous Petition be allowed. Learned counsel for the opposite party on the other hand opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in this Civil Miscellaneous Petition and submits that the undisputed fact remains that this Court heard and disposed of the Second Appeal No.272 of 2015 ex-parte against the respondent vide order dated 27th April, 2023. Article 123 of the Schedule of Limitation Act, 1963 provides the period of limitation to file any application to rehear an appeal decreed; within 30 days from the date of the decree. It is next submitted that this application was filed on 06.11.2023 i.e. beyond the period of 30 days not (2025:JHHC:19894) 3 only from the ex-parte judgment but even beyond the period of 30 days from the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dated 18.09.2023, in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.(s) 36665 of 2023. It is then submitted that, there is absolutely no prayer for condonation of delay; nor has there been any reason assigned for condoning the delay in filing the petition for rehearing this appeal, beyond the period of 30 days from the date of decree, when the undisputed fact remains that the notice of the appeal was served upon the sole respondent. It is then submitted that it is out and out a false submission on the part of the petitioner, that she being an old woman, could not arrange money and could not come to Ranchi to engage a lawyer in this Court. It is then submitted that such contention of the petitioner, is also without any merit and is apparently false statement on the face of record itself, because in para-10 of the petition, the petitioner herself has categorically stated that she sought opinion from the counsel for taking legal recourse available for her after the appeal was heard ex-parte. So, if she could take opinion of a counsel apparently at Ranchi to file a Special Leave Petition, and that too without taking any free legal aid, rather by engaging a private counsel, filed Special Leave Petition vide (Civil) Diary No.(s) 36665 of 2023 and vide order dated 18.09.2023 the same was disposed of; her contention that she had no money to come from Gomia in the District of Bokaro which is about 110 KMs away from Ranchi, is not tenable; as the petitioner could go all the way to Delhi, it is not believable that she cannot come to Ranchi. It is next submitted that under Rule 21 of Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure, an appeal which has been heard ex-parte and the judgment pronounced against the respondent can only be reheard:- (i) If notice was not duly served; or (ii) When the respondent of the appeal was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing when the appeal was called up for hearing. It is further submitted that admittedly, the first ground does not exist in this case, as admittedly the respondent received notice of the appeal and the second contention, that she was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing when this appeal was called up for hearing, is false on the materials available in the record. Hence, it is submitted that rehearing of the appeal; thereby extinguishing the valuable rights that has accrued to the opposite party by the judgment dated 27th April, 2023 in Second Appeal No.272 of 2015 after toiling (2025:JHHC:19894) 4 and taking the rigors of pursuing the civil suit being the Title Suit No.01 of 1998 after a long drawn battle of about a quarter of century; when not even good cause, let alone sufficient case, is shown by the respondent. It is further submitted that in case the appeal is reheard, the opposite party will be highly prejudiced. Hence, it is submitted that this Civil Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that, as has rightly been submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party, Article 123 of the Schedule of Limitation Act, 1963 prescribes the period of limitation of 30 days inter alia for filing an application to rehear an appeal decreed or heard ex-parte and the time from which the period begins to run is the date of the decree or where the summons or notice was not duly served when the applicant has the knowledge of the decree. Now coming to the facts of the case, in view of the admission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner-respondent that the respondent was served with the notice of the appeal, so, the period of limitation of 30 days will start running from 27th April, 2023. Admittedly, this petition having been filed on 06.11.2023, was filed beyond the period of 30 days, not only from the date of the judgment passed by this Court in the said Second Appeal but even beyond the period of 30 days from the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dated 18.09.2023 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.(s) 36665 of 2023. There is neither prayer made for condoning the delay in filing the petition for rehearing of the appeal, beyond the prescribed period of limitation of 30 days nor any cause has been cited for the same; so otherwise also, this petition is barred by limitation, in view of the limitation prescribed in Article 123 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963. Now coming to the merits of the petition, the only contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner was poor-old woman, hence, she could not engage a counsel but the fact remains that in para-10 of the petition, the petitioner has, in no uncertain manner, admitted that she took the legal advice of the counsel, who advised her that only option left for her is to file a Special Leave Petition in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The undisputed fact remains that the Special Leave Petition was filed through a private counsel and (2025:JHHC:19894) 5 not by taking any free legal aid. There is no explanation as to why if the respondent was not having money, she did not approach the Legal Services Authority either at Taluk level or District level or even the High Court of Jharkhand Legal Services Committee for engagement of a free legal-aid counsel. It is needless to mention here that in the State of Jharkhand, all the women are entitled to get free Legal Aid, if they make request for the same and the petitioner herein is a woman. As the petitioner could go all the way to Delhi and engage a private counsel, this Court is not inclined to accept her contention that she could not come to Ranchi which is at a distance of about 110 KMs to engage a lawyer; private or free legal aid counsel. Thus in the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner could not establish any sufficient cause for not appearing before this Court when the Second Appeal No.272 of 2015 was called on for hearing. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition, being barred by limitation and also being without any merit, is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) AFR-Saroj/