2025:JHHC:11578-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Civil Review No.06 of 2020 (with I.A. No.5953 of 2020) DTC Securities Limited, having its office at 1-Netaji Subhash Road, P.O. G.P.O. Kolkata, P.S. Hare Street, Kolkata-700001 (West Bengal), through its Authorised Signatory, namely, Santosh Agarwal, aged about 50 years, son of Late Moti Lal Agarwal, resident of 130, Dakshindari Road, Lake Town, P.O. Shreebhumi, P.S. Lake Town, District North Parganas (West Bengal). ... Petitioner/Respondent/Petitioner Versus 1. Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation, through its Managing Director, having its office at Khanij Nigam Bhawan, Doranda, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi (Jharkhand) 2. General Manager (Mines), Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation, having its office at Khanij Nigam Bhawan, Doranda, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi (Jharkhand). ... Respondents/Appellants/Opp. Parties 3. Basant Poddar, son of Sri K.K. Poddar, having his office at Sri Gopal Complex, P.O. G.P.O, P.S. Kotwali, Town & District Ranchi (Jharkhand). ... Respondents/Appellants/Opp. Parties --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate (through VC) Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate For Resp. Nos.1&2: Mr. Karamdeo, Advocate --------- 05/Dated: 17.04.2025 M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.(Oral) I.A. No. 5953 of 2020 1. This application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone delay of 664 days in filing the review petition challenging the judgment dt. 15.02.2018 in L.P.A. No. 537 of 2012. 2. Though it is contended in the application for condonation of delay that the counsel for the applicant did not notice about the listing of the appeal on 15.02.2018 and remained absent, which occasioned 2025:JHHC:11578-DB the delay, we are of the opinion that it is the duty of the applicant also to check up what happened to the matter in which it is a party. 3. Also, the issue in the L.P.A. is related to the termination of an agreement dt. 04.05.2011 done on 17.01.2012 and the basis for the order in the Letters Patent Appeal was that even the life of the original agreement came to an end on 04.05.2016. In these circumstances, we do not see any reason to either condone delay or to review the order passed in the L.P.A. at this point of time. 4. Therefore, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. 5. Consequently, the review application is also dismissed. (M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) Manoj/Pramanik/Cp.2