2025:JHHC:23072 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C. M. P. No.485 of 2025 Parvind Kumar Rastogi @ Praveen Kumar Rastogi, S/o Ramji Prasad, R/o Village- Bamhne, at Present Awall Mahalla, PO, PS & District- Chatra, Jharkhand. .... .. ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1. Rasul Mian, S/o Late Makbul Mian @ Bhui Mian, R/o Village Bind Mahalla, Chatra, PO, PS & District- Chatra. 2. Shiv Shankar Prasad Rastogi, S/o Late Ramjatan Sao, R/o Village- Bamhne, at Present Awall Mahalla, PO, PS & District- Chatra, Jharkhand. .. ... ...Opp. Party(s) ........... CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ......... For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arjun Narayan Deo, Advocate For the O. P(s). : …... 06/ 08.08.2025. Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner. 1. The progression of the instant case up to filing of the instant CMP for restoration of Second Appeal No.02 of 2012, reflects a curious trajectory. 2. List of dates is set out hereunder for better appreciation: a. 30.07.2003-TS Suit No.21/1997 filed by O.P. No.2/ plaintiff has been dismissed. b. 30.04.2005-Title Appeal preferred by the O.P. No.2/ plaintiff is dismissed. c. 09.01.2012- Second Appeal No.02 of 2012 has been filed on 09.01.2012after a delay of 2354 days against the concurrent findings of fact of both the courts below along with IA No.66 of 2012 for condonation of delay filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. d. 22.11.2018--Second Appeal No.02 of 2012 was dismissed for not removing the defect(s) for default and for its restoration CMP No.588 of 2018 was filed which was also dismissed for default on 12.07.2019. e. 02.09.2022 -CMP No.557 of 2019 was filed for restoration of CMP No.588 of 2018 which was allowed. f. 15.03.2024— C.M.P. No.588 of 2018 was restored to its original file. 2025:JHHC:23072 2 g. 10.06.2024- Second Appeal No.02 of 2012 was dismissed again for non-compliance of an order dated 07.05.2024 for not removing the surviving defects. h. 18.12.2024-- Present C.M.P-485 of 2025 of is filed for restoration of the aforesaid Second Appeal which was dismissed on 10.06.2024. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner / plaintiff that Opp. Party No.1 [Rasul Mian] died during pendency of CMP No.588 of 2018 and interlocutory application was filed for substitution which was neither pressed nor placed either by the office or by him, therefore, he could not be substituted. 4. The matter for consideration before this Court is that whether the instant CMP has any merit considering the lax conduct of the plaintiff/ petitioner who is facing a concurrent judgment of dismissal of the said Second Appeal. 5. Having considered the trend of events leading to filing of the instant CMP, it is evident that the aforesaid Second Appeal in this Court is being pursued in a most flippant and lax manner. At the outset, it be noted that the said Second Appeal was filed after an inordinate delay of more than six years and without any cogent reason. Even the second appeal was filed with multiple defects for which it was dismissed, and the restoration petitions were dismissed for default twice. 6. Courts are run on public money and any litigant cannot have an unlimited draught on court time with frivolous adjournments. The Apex Court made some very pertinent observations on the subject of delay in civil adjudication and adjournments in Yashpal Jain v. Sushila Devi, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1377. It noted various factors contributing to delays which included unmerited adjournments. It has been held as under :- “31. Apart from the above reasons, the other vital reasons include the over-tolerant nature of the courts below while extending their olive branch to grant adjournment at the drop of the hat and thereby bringing the entire judicial process to a grinding halt. It is crucial to understand that the wheels of justice must not merely turn, they must turn without friction, without bringing it to a grinding halt due to unwarranted delay. It is for such reasons that the system itself is being ridiculed not only by the litigant public but also by the general 2025:JHHC:23072 3 public, thereby showing signs of constant fear of delay in the minds of public which might occur during the resolution of dispute, dissuading them from knocking at the doors of justice. All the stakeholders of the system have to be alive to this alarming situation and should thwart any attempt to pollute the stream of judicial process and same requires to be dealt with iron hands and curbed by nipping them at the bud, as otherwise the confidence of the public in the system would slowly be eroded. Be it the litigant public or Member of the Bar or anyone connected in the process of dispensation of justice, should not be allowed to dilute the judicial processes by delaying the said process by in any manner whatsoever. As held by this Court in T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal AIR (1977) 4 SCC 467 the answer to an irresponsible suit or litigation would be a vigilant judge. This analogy requires to be stretched in the instant case and to all the pending matters by necessarily holding that every stakeholder in the process of dispensation of justice is required to act swiftly, diligently, without giving scope for any delay in dispensation of justice. Thus, an onerous responsibility rests on the shoulders of the presiding officer of every court, who should be cautious and vigilant against such indolent acts and persons who attempt to thwart quick dispensation of justice. A response is expected from all parties involved, with a special emphasis on the presiding officer. The presiding officer must exercise due diligence to ensure that proceedings are conducted efficiently and without unnecessary delays. While it's important to maintain a friendly and cooperative atmosphere with the members of the Bar, this should not be misused as a pretext for frequent adjournment requests. A word of caution to the learned members of the Bar, at this juncture, would also be necessary because of they being considered as another wheel of the chariot of dispensation of justice. They should be circumspect in seeking adjournments, that too in old matters or matters which have been pending for decades and desist from making request or prayer for grant of adjournments for any reason whatsoever and should not take the goodness of the presiding officer as his/her weakness. 7. This Court is of the view that in the facts and circumstance of the present case, the Petitioner does not deserve any indulgence in restoration of the second appeal which is already time barred. Civil Miscellaneous Petition accordingly stands dismissed. Pending I.A(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sandeep/-