[2025:JHHC:35746] -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Civil Review No. 45 of 2025 1. Ram Autar Singh, Aged about 71 years, Son of Late Lalo Singh. 2. Rajesh Kumar Singh @ Rajesh Singh, aged about 51 years, son of Late Gajanand Singh 3. Biki Devi aged about 28 years wife of Late Rakesh Kumar Singh All residents of Village Gumo, P.O. Gumo, P.S. Telaiya, District Koderma (Jharkhand). ..... … Petitioners Versus 1. State of Jharkhand. 2. Deputy Commissioner, Koderma, P.O. and P.S. District Koderma. 3. District Sub-Registrar, Koderma, P.O. and P.S. District Koderma. 4. Circle Officer, Koderma Anchal, Koderma, P.O. and P.S. District Koderma. 5. Anant Prasad Singh 6. Someshwar Nath Singh 7. Rangnath Singh All sons of Triloki Nath Singh, residents of Village Masnodih, P.O. Masnodih, P.S. Domchanch, District-Koderma 8. Shashikant Pandey, son of Late Badri Narayan Pandey resident of Village Gumo, Ward No.21, Jhumri Telaiya, P.O. Jhumri Telaiya, P.S. Telaiya, District Koderma (Jharkhand). ..... … Opposite Parties with Cont. Case. (Civil) No. 31 of 2025 Shashi Kant Pandey, aged about 56 years, S/o Late Badri Narayan Pandey, R/o Village-Gumo, Ward No.- 21, Jhumri Telaiya Municipal Area, P.Ο.- [2025:JHHC:35746] -2- Jhumri Telaiya, P.S.- Telaiya, Dist- Koderma. ..... … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Mr. Vikash Kumar, S/o not Known to the petitioner, District Sub-Registrar, Koderma, P.O., P.S. and District-Koderma. ..... … Opposite Parties -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Gaurang Jajodia, A.C. to G.P.-II. For the O.P. Nos. 5 to 8 : Mr. Anshuman Kumar, Advocate. ------ 07/ 28.11.2025 This civil review has been filed for recalling the order dated 07.08.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No. 2417 of 2024, by which, the writ petition was allowed and direction has been issued to the District Sub- Registrar, Koderma to register the lands in question on being presented by the petitioners forthwith. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the said writ petition was filed for a direction upon the respondents to accept the sale deed of the petitioners for the land appertaining to Khata No. 220/767, Plot No. 2808/6778, Mouza Gumo, P.S.-Telaiya, Thana No. 12, measuring an area 3.08 acres of land situated at District Koderma. He next submits that the plot is in dispute between the petitioners herein and the writ petitioners and for that a Title Suit No. 40 of 1990 was going on, in which, these petitioners are also party, however, the said suit was decided against the petitioners and pursuant to that the petitioners herein have preferred Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2014, which has been subsequently, dismissed, affirming the decree of the title suit. He further submits that the said order has also been challenged by these petitioners in Second Appeal No. 122 of 2024, which is admitted on the substantial question of law and the said second [2025:JHHC:35746] -3- appeal is pending before this court. On these grounds, he submits that petitioners herein were the necessary party and, in their absence, the said writ petition was disposed of in favour of the writ petitioners, as such, the order dated 07.08.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No. 2417 of 2024 may kindly be recalled the said W.P.C. may kindly be restored to its original file for fresh decision. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners, who are O.P. Nos. 5 to 8 fairly submits that the petitioners herein were not made party in the writ petition and he is also not disputing that the petitioners herein were party in the Title Suit as well as in the Civil Appeal and in the Second Appeal also and the said second appeal has been preferred by them. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that whatever be the result of the writ petition, the petitioners were the necessary party in the writ petition. 5. In view of the above and considering the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, it transpires that these petitioners were not made party in the writ petition and this fact has been admitted by the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing for the State and further it is also not in dispute that these petitioners were participating in Title Suit No. 40 of 1990 and Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2014 and also in Second Appeal No. 122 of 2024 and the second appeal is admitted on the substantial question of law and the said second appeal is pending before this court. In that view of the matter, this court finds that this is a fit case to recall the order dated 07.08.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No. 2417 of 2024. 6. As such, the order dated 07.08.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No. 2417 of 2024, is hereby, recalled and W.P.(C) No. 2417 of 2024 is [2025:JHHC:35746] -4- restored to its original file, which will be decided in accordance with law. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. 7. Let W.P.(C) No. 2417 of 2024 be placed before the appropriate bench. Cont. Case. (Civil) No. 31 of 2025 8. In light of the above order, passed in Civil Review No. 45 of 2025, the contempt case, which has been filed for non-compliance of order dated 07.08.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No. 2417 of 2024, is hereby disposed of and the contempt proceeding is, hereby, dropped. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated:-28.11.2025 Amitesh/- Uploaded on 02.12.2025