(2025:JHHC:11857) Civil Review No.43 of 2024 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Civil Review No. 43 of 2024 1. Sri Kashi Nath Singh, Son of Late Kunwar Saradindu Narayan Singh, aged about 61 years, Resident of Katras Rajbari, P.O. Katras Bazar, P.S. Katras, District –Dhanbad. 2. Sri Trilok Nath Singh, Son of Late Kunwar Saradindu Narayan Singh, aged about 41 years, Resident of Katras Rajbari, P.O. Katras Bazar, P.S. Katras, District –Dhanbad. .... Petitioners Versus 1. Sri Chandra Nath Singh, Son of Ex-Raja Late Purnendu Narayan Singh, Resident of Rajbari Katras, P.O. Katras Bazar, P.S. Katrasgarh, District –Dhanbad. 2. Smt. Anuradhan Singh, Wife of Late Jagannath Singh, Resident of Rajbari Katras, P.O. Katras Bazar, P.S. Katrasgarh, District – Dhanbad. 3. Sri Ranveer Singh Deo, Son of Late Jagannath Singh, Resident of Rajbari Katras, P.O. Katras Bazar, P.S. Katrasgarh, District – Dhanbad. 4. Sri Abhimanyu Singh Deo, Son of Late Jagannath Singh, Resident of Rajbari Katras, P.O. Katras Bazar, P.S. Katrasgarh, District –Dhanbad. 5. Most. Chinmoey Singh, Wife of Late Somnath Singh, Resident of Katras Rajbari, P.O. Katrasgarh, P.S. –Katras, District –Dhanbad. 6. Sri Ajay Singh Deo, Son of Late Somnath Singh, Resident of Katras Rajbari, P.O. Katrasgarh, P.S. Katras, District –Dhanbad. 7. Shweta Singh Deo, Daughter of Late Somnath Singh, Resident of Katras Rajbari, P.O. Katrasgarh, P.S. Katras District –Dhanbad. 8. Sri Baidya Nath Singh, Son of Ex-Raja Late Purnendu Narayan Singh, Resident of Katras Rajbari, P.O. Katras Bazar, P.S. Katras, District –Dhanbad. 9. Smt. Aparna Singh, Wife of Sri Rudra Bhushan Singh, Daughter of Ex-Raja Late Purnendu Narayan Singh, Resident of (2025:JHHC:11857) Civil Review No.43 of 2024 2 Khairagarh, P.O. & P.S. Khairagarh, Satisadan, District – Rajnandgaon (Chhatisgarh) -491441. 10. Smt. Rajshree Singh, Wife of Sri Uday Bhan Singh, Resident of Kanker, P.O. & P.S. Kanker, District Kanker (Chhatisgarh) - 494334. 11. Sri Bishwa Nath Singh, Son of Ex-Raja Late Purnendu Narayan Singh, Resident of Katras Rajbari, P.O. Katras Bazar, P.S. Katras, District –Dhanbad. 12. Smt. Rajeshwari Singh, Wife of Late Amarnath Singh, Resident of Katras Rajbari, P.O. Katrasgarh, P.S. Katras, District – Dhanbad. 13. Sri Sandeep Singh Deo, Son of Late Amarnath Singh, Resident of Katras Rajbari, P.O. Katras Bazar, P.S. Katras, District – Dhanbad. 14. Sri Amit Singh Deo, Son of Late Amarnath Singh, Resident of Katras Rajbari, P.O. Katras Bazar, P.S. Katras, District –Dhanbad. 15. Sri Pramatha Nath Singh, Son of Ex-Raja Late Purnendu Narayan Singh, Resident of Katras Rajbari, P.O. Katras Bazar, P.S. Katras, District –Dhanbad. 16. Sri Shambhu Nath Singh, Son of Ex-Raja Late Purnendu Narayan Singh, Resident of Katras Rajbari, P.O. Katras Bazar, P.S. Katras, District –Dhanbad. 17. Smt. Shanti Devi, Wife of Sri Rana Chandra Singh, Daughter of Late Kunwar Saradindu Narayan Singh, Resident of 2 Bhagyodaya Ankur Society –II, Naranpura, P.O. & P.S. Naranpura, District –Ahmedabad (Gujarat) -380013. 18. Smt. Jayashree Singh, Wife of Sri Uday Kumar Singh, Daughter of Kunwar Saradindu Narayan Singh, Resident of Kamta, P.O. & P.S. Chandwa, District –Latehar (Jharkhand) 19. Smt. Jayanti Samanta, Wife of Dr. Ashok Kumar Samanta, Daughter of Kunwar Saradindu Narayan Singh, Resident of New Bus Stand Road, P & T Dispensary, Berhampur, P.O. & P.S. Berhampur, District –Ganjam (Odisha) (2025:JHHC:11857) Civil Review No.43 of 2024 3 20. Sri Deb Nath Singh, Son of Late Kunwar Saradindu Narayan Singh, aged about 51 years, Resident of Katras Rajbari, P.O. Katras Bazar, P.S. Katras, District –Dhanbad. 21. Sri Shesh Nath Singh, Son of Late Kunwar Saradindu Narayan Singh, aged about 49 years, Resident of Katras Rajbari, P.O. Katras Bazar, P.S. Katras, District –Dhanbad. …. Opposite Parties P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioners : Mr. Prashant Pallav, Advocate : Ms. Shivani Jaluka, Advocate For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Rohitashya Roy, Advocate : Mr. Tarun Kr. Mahato, Advocate : Mr. Shivam Kumar, Advocate ….. By the Court:- Civil Review No. 43 of 2024 1. Heard the parties. 2. Notice issued to the opposite party no.10 by registered post with A/D has returned with the report that the opposite party no.10 has refused to receive the registered letter containing the notice issued in this case. 3. Hence, service of notice upon the opposite party no.10 is sufficient. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) I.A. No. 5938 of 2024 1. Heard the parties. 2. This interlocutory application has been field with a prayer to condone the delay of 401 days in filing this review application. (2025:JHHC:11857) Civil Review No.43 of 2024 4 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have no knowledge about the passing of the order dated 2nd of February, 2023 in F.A. No. 45 of 2022 as no notices were issued to the petitioners and the appellants by misleading this Court after filing First Appeal No. 45 of 2022 submitted before this Court that the judgment and decree in Title (Partition) Suit No. 1600036 of 2009 has been passed against a dead person; being the defendant no.3 of that suit namely Sri Somenath Singh and in view of the admission made by the appellants, that the appeal filed by them is not maintainable having been challenging a decree, which is a nullity, because for the same having been filed against a dead person, being the defendant no.3 without substitution of his legal representatives, the First Appeal No. 45 of 2022 was dismissed being not maintainable vide order dated 02.02.2023. It is next submitted that the petitioner after coming to know about the order dated 02.02.2023, passed in F.A. No. 45 of 2022 found out that there is an error in the judgment dated 28.04.2022, passed in the said Title (Partition) Suit No. 1600036 of 2009 and filed an application under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure for correction of the said judgment which was registered as Civil Miscellaneous Case No. 39 of 2023 and the petitioners filed Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for early disposal of the said Civil Miscellaneous Case No. 39 of 2023 which was registered as C.M.P. No. 1061 of 2023 and the same was disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioners for filing a review of the order dated 02.02.2023, (2025:JHHC:11857) Civil Review No.43 of 2024 5 passed in F.A. No. 45 of 2022, hence this review application has been filed on 08.04.2024. It is next submitted that the petitioners have been diligently pursuing the case by filing an application under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which is still pending for disposal. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has disposed of C.M.P. No. 1061 of 2023 giving liberty to the petitioners to file a review of the order dated 02.02.2023, passed in F.A. No. 45 of 2022 and thereafter the petitioners have filed this instant review application for review of the order dated 02.02.2023, passed in F.A. No. 45 of 2022. Hence, it is submitted that the delay in filing this civil review be condoned. 4. The learned counsel for the opposite parties on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer to condone the inordinate delay of 401 days in filing this civil review application. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that the petitioners have made false averment on oath in para-10 of this interlocutory application by stating that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court disposed of C.M.P. No. 1061 of 2023 by giving liberty to the petitioners to file a review of the order dated 02.02.2023, passed in F.A. No. 45 of 2022. Drawing attention of this Court to para -8 of the order dated 26.02.2024, passed in C.M.P. No. 1061 of 2023, copy of which is annexed as annexure-8 of Civil Review No. 43 of 2024, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that the Co-ordinate Bench has not accorded any liberty to the petitioners to file review against the order dated 02.02.2023 (2025:JHHC:11857) Civil Review No.43 of 2024 6 rather upon the petitioners expressing their wish to withdraw the said C.M.P. No. 1061 of 2023, the Co-ordinate Bench accorded liberty to the petitioners to make appropriate application in First Appeal No. 45 of 2022. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that the petitioners have not disclosed as to on which date, they came to know about the order dated 02.02.2023, passed by this Court in F.A. No. 45 of 2022; and the said date has not been disclosed, deliberately to prevent themselves from being standing exposed of the fact, that they were well aware about the order dated 02.02.2023, passed by this Court in F.A. No. 45 of 2022 on the date of the order itself; as the order was not only pronounced in open Court but was uploaded in the website of the Court as well and they have absolutely no cause, let alone any sufficient cause for causing the inordinate delay of 401 days in filing this Civil Review No. 43 of 2024 and as the order dated 02.02.2023, passed in F.A. No. 45 of 2022 has attained finality and in the absence of any cause, let alone sufficient case, this inordinate delay of 401 days in filing this civil review ought not to be allowed. 5. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that this Court has dismissed First Appeal No. 45 of 2022 as the same being not maintainable having been preferred against the judgment and decree which is a nullity and the fact that the judgment was a nullity is not an adjudication of this Court but the same was made on the basis of the admission made by the (2025:JHHC:11857) Civil Review No.43 of 2024 7 appellants of First Appeal No. 45 of 2022. So, the consequence is that because of dismissal of First Appeal No. 45 of 2022, the judgment and decree passed in Title (Partition) Suit No. 1600036 of 2009 dated 28.04.2022 stands as it is. Whether, it was a nullity or not is a question to be considered by the learned trial court if at all the same is raised before the learned trial court. The petitioners have not mentioned the date when they came to know about the order dated 02.02.2023, passed in F.A. No. 45 of 2022 and there is no explanation as to why, they did not file Civil Review No. 43 of 2024 within the time stipulated by law. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners have failed to put forth any good or sufficient cause to condone the delay of 401 days in filing this Civil Review. 6. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to condone such inordinate delay of 401 days in filing this Civil Review No. 43 of 2024. 7. Therefore, this interlocutory application being without any merit is dismissed and consequently this Civil Review No. 43 of 2024 is dismissed being barred by limitation. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 4th April, 2025 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-