RAVINDRA MITRA And ORS. v. BHAGWAN DAS RAJDEO And ANR.
SA/9900132/1998 · 2025-10-09
Anubha Rawat Choudhary
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 33853 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 33853 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2025:JHHC:31197
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S. A. No. 132 of 1998
Sachin Kumar Mitra @ Sachin Mitra (Substituted vide order dated 08.08.2008) 1.a Ravindra Mitra 1.b Subir Mitra Both S/O: Late Sachin Mitra 1.c Supriya Mitra, D/O: Late Sachin Mitra All R/O: Tantipara, Ward No. 4, P.O. +P.S. Municipality, Pakur Town, District- Pakur.
… … Plaintiff/Respondent/Appellant
Versus
1. Bhagwan Das Rajdeo
2. Raj Kumar Rajdeo Both Sons of Late Newanand Ram, Proprietor of Matumal Athwani Stone Company, resident of Harindanga Bazar, ward No.4 Pakur Municipality, Police Station- Pakur Town, District- Sahibganj. … … Defendants/Appellants/Respondents ---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---
For the Appellant : None
For the Respondents : Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate
: Mr. Om Prakash, Advocate
: Ms. Maksuda Khatun, Advocate
---
24/09.10.2025
1.
Learned counsel for the appellant is absent.
2.
Learned counsel for the respondents is present.
3. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 19.02.1998 (decree signed on 27.02.1998) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Pakur in Title Appeal No. 05 of 1991 setting aside the judgment dated 14.09.1990 (decree signed on 22.09.1990) in Eviction Suit No. 15 of 1984 passed by learned Sub Judge-II, Pakur.
4. The title suit was decreed by the learned trial court and the
judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court was set aside by the learned 1st appellate court. Consequently, the plaintiffs are the appellants before this Court.
2025:JHHC:31197
2
5. This Court waited about 20 minutes for learned counsel for the appellant during which the learned counsel for the respondent was placing the case records and his arguments. Neither any request for adjournment has been circulated nor the learned counsel for the appellant has appeared before this Court. Consequently, this appeal is hereby dismissed for non-prosecution.
6. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed.
7. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the concerned court through “Fax/e-mail”.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 09.10.2025 Rakesh/- Uploaded on 10.10.2025