[2025:JHHC:12131] 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Civil Revision No.02 of 2024 --------- Mayank Manthan @ Pratik Jaiswal, aged about 30 years, so of Dilip Kumar Jaiswal, resident of Lepo Road, Near Laxmi Cinema, P.O. Hazaribag, P.S.- Sadar,-Dist.-Hazaribag (Jharkhand) … … Petitioner Versus 1.Pradeep Kumar Jaiswal son of Suresh Prasad Jaiswal resident of Mohalla Lepo Road, Near Laxmi Cinema Hall, P.O. Hazaribag, P.S.-Sadar, Dist.- Hazaribag, presently residing at Ashram Road, Kumhartoli, P.O. Hazaribag, P.S. Sadar, Dist.-Hazaribagh 2.Anup Kumar Jaiswal son of Suresh Prasad Jaiswal resident of Mohalla Lepo Road, Near Laxmi Cinema Hall, P.O.-Hazaribag, P.S.-Sadar, Dist.- Hazaribag, presently residing at New Colony, Kani Bazar, Near Elora School, P.O.-Hazaribag, P.S.-Sadar-Dist.-Hazaribag …. Plaintiff/Opp. Parties 3.Smt. Neeta Jaiswal wife of Niraj Jaiswal and daughter of Late Suresh Prasad Jaiswal, C/o-Dr. Hare Krishna Bhagat, at Tundi, P.O. & P.S.-Tundi, Dist.-Dhanbad …. Defendant/Performa Opp. Party --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ---------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sahil, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Advocate Mr. Virendra Kumar, Advocate ----------- 07/Dated: 24th April, 2025 1. Heard the parties. 2. This Civil Revision application has been filed against the order dated 21.12.2023 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-V, Hazaribag in Miscellaneous Case No.4 of 2021 arising out of Partition Suit No.45 of 2009 by which the learned court below has allowed the petition filed by the plaintiff/opposite party under Order IX Rule 3 read with Section 151 C.P.C for restoration of Partition Suit No.45 of 2009 and has also condoned the unexplained delay of more than six years. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Partition Suit was dismissed for default due to non-compliance of the specific order of the concerned trial [2025:JHHC:12131] 2 court. Thereafter the restoration petition which was filed in the time barred has been allowed without any valid reasons after condoning the delay. Therefore, the impugned order is fit to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that sufficient reasonable cause was shown for filing the restoration petition with certain delay which has been condoned by the learned trial court finding the reasons disclosed by the opposite parties to be sufficient. It is a partition suit and has to be decided on merits, no prejudiced is going to cause any party by the impugned order, therefore, the instant revision is fit to be dismissed. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and rival contentions of the parties, along with the impugned order, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order and no merits in the instant revision, accordingly the same is hereby dismissed. 6. Accordingly, I.A. No.1849 of 2025 stands disposed of. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Rohit/-