1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C. M.P. No. 913 of 2022 Chandra Kishore Prasad Mahto, S/o Late Baneshar Mahto, R/o Village Nagrikalan, P.O. & P.S. Tetulmari, District- Dhanbad, Jharkhand. .... .... Petitioner Versus 1.Kali Mahto @ Kalicharan Mahto 2.Bijay Mahto Both sons of Late Radhanath Mahto, R/o Village Karitand, Tola, Dumartand, P.O. Baghdaha, P.S. Katras, District- Dhanbad, Jharkhand. … …. Opp. Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Ramchander Sahu, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Rahul Kr. Gupta, Advocate ------ Order No. 06 / Dated : 21.02.2025. The instant Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed under order 41 R 22 of the CPC for re-hearing the Second Appeal vide S.A. No. 186 of 2006 on the ground that learned counsel for the petitioner/respondent was not heard while allowing the second appeal. I.A. No. 1941 of 2024 Heard, the learned counsel in I.A. No. 1941 of 2024, which has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 177 days in filing the instant CMP. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner/ respondent was aged about 77 years and suffering from various old age illness and, therefore, this petition could not be filed in time. Learned counsel on behalf of the opposite parties has opposed the condonation application. It is submitted that the ground taken appears to be flimsy and frivolous and cannot be said to be the basis for condonation of long delay. On perusal of record of the case, it is apparent that petitioner had appeared on 20.08.2018 in the Second Appeal no.186 of 2006 through Counsel by filing Vakalatnama and the case was disposed of on 4th January 2022 after hearing both the sides, as the name of the counsel, Sri Ramchandar Sahu of the Respondent appears in the Judgment. Further, the instant CMP has been filed after a delay of 177 days only on the ground that the Respondent was old and not in good health. When the counsel was in attendance, the plea that the party himself could not attend the Court which resulted in the delay in filing the instant petition, is not at all 2 convincing. This is for the reason that at the stage of appeal, where the party is represented by a counsel, his appearance is not required. Interlocutory application for condonation of delay accordingly stands dismissed. Civil miscellaneous petition application accordingly stands dismissed. Pending I.A(s), if any, stands closed. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Pawan/ -