2025:JHHC:34094 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 700 of 2025 ------ Nepal Pandit, son of Late Raghunath Pandit, resident of Bhairwa (Kumhar Toli), P.O. & P.S. Madhupur, District Deoghar .... .... …. Petitioner Versus 1. Gopal Pandit, son of Late Raghunath Pandit 2. Durga Pandit, Son of Late Jagdish Pandit Sl. Nos.1 & 2 residents of Mohalla Bhairwa (Kumhar Toli), P.O., P.S. & Sub Division Madhupur, District Deoghar 3. Satyabhama Devi, wife of Sunder Pandit, resident of Village Dhakanidih, P.O. Sanduri, P.S. Narayanpur, District Jamtara 4. Sunil Pandit, son of Dhanraj Pandit 5. Prakash Pandit, son of Dhanraj Pandit 6. Ramesh Pandit, son of Dhanraj Pandit Sl. Nos. 4 to 6 residents of Village Chakardaha, P.O. Bengabad, P.S. & Sub Division Bengabad, District Giridih 7. Jhula Devi, daughter of Dhanraj Pandit, resident of Village Mahuwar, P.O. Bengabad, P.S. & Sub Division, Bengabad, District Giridih 8. Renu Devi, daughter of Dhanraj Pandit, resident of Village Kesodih, P.O. Kesodih, P.S. Birni, District Giridih 9. Sakuntala Devi, daughter of Late Jagdish Pandit, resident of Barmasia, P.O. & PS. Jhajha, District Jamui (Bihar) .... .... .... Opposite Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Mohan Kumar Dubey, Advocate Mr. Utpal Kant, Advocate For the O.P. No.2&9 : Mr. Sameer Ranjan, Advocate Mr. Chanchal Jain, Advocate Mr. Kushal Kumar, Advocate ------ Order No.04 / Dated : 14.11.2025 Misc. Appeal No.51 of 2020 was dismissed for default on 28.07.2021 due to non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 23.06.2021. 2. Instant civil miscellaneous petition has been filed for restoration of the said appeal under Order XLI Rule 19 of the CPC after condoning the delay of 1131 days in preferring restoration application for which a separate I.A. No.10878 of 2025 has been filed. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel that miscellaneous appeal was preferred against dismissal of the probate application and the petitioner was not duly informed by the learned conducting counsel with regard to dismissal of the suit which resulted in delay. The defect was formal in 2025:JHHC:34094 nature to mention the signature of counsel with the enrollment number after prayer portion in memo of appeal, which was to be removed within a period of four weeks and because of laches on the part of conducting counsel the petitioner, who has a good case, cannot suffer. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel on behalf of opposite parties that the plea of laches on the part of counsel, cannot be the sole ground for condoning the inordinate delay of more than 1100 days. 5. Laches on the part of the conducting counsel cannot be accepted as a basis for condoning delay exceeding 1000 days under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. There need to be some bona fide explanation and substantial reasons, and mere lapse of time or negligence, especially when it exceeds significant periods like 1000 days, typically does not constitute a "sufficient cause" to justify condonation. The legal position emphasizes that delay must be explained by genuine causes and not by laches or negligence. 6. If such a plea is accepted, then in all cases, delay on account of the laches on the part of the counsel can be advanced and accepted, rendering the provisions of the Limitation Act to be otiose. 7. Instant restoration application being filed after inordinate delay without any sufficient reason for it, is devoid of any merit. Civil Miscellaneous Petition accordingly stands dismissed. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Anit Uploaded 14.11.2025