2025:JHHC:26059 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 127 of 2023 1. Mahendra Thakur, aged about 56 years, S/O: Late Puna Thakur 2. Munshi Mahto, aged about 71 years, S/O Late Badhan Mahto 3. Bodi Mahto, aged about 68 years, S/O: Late Badhan Mahto 4. Dwarika Mahto, aged about 61 years, S/O: Baiju @ Bajo Mahto 5. Jehal Mahto, aged about 76 years, S/O: Late Mangar Mahto 6. Bandhan Mahto, aged about 70 years, S/O: Babun Mahto 7. Bhim Thakur aged about 56 years, S/O: Atwari Thakur 8. Parmeshwar Thakur, aged about 74 years, S/O: Atwari Thakur 9. Guli Thakur, aged about 67 years, S/O: Atwari Thakur 10. Panchu Mahto, aged about 82 years, S/O: Atwari Thakur All resident of Village Beladih, P.S. Markacho, P.O. Chopnadih, District-Koderma … … Appellants/Petitioners Versus 1. Jageshwar Mahto, S/O: Lachhu Mahto 2. Bhim Mahto, S/O: Lachhu Mahto 3. Sahdeo Mahto, S/O: Lachhu Mahto 4. Mahadeo Mahto, S/O: Lachhu Mahto All resident of Village Chopanadih, P.S. Markacho, P.O. Chopnadih, District-Koderma ... ... Respondents/Opposite parties 5. The Stage of Jharkhand through Circle Officer, Markacho, P.S. Markacho, P.O. Chapnadih, District-Koderma … … Proforma Respondent/Respondent/Opp. Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Amarendra Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Shashank Saurav, AC to GP-III --- 05/29.08.2025 1. This C.M.P. has been filed for restoration of S.A. 221 of 2009 which was dismissed on account of non-removal of defects in terms of order date 16.07.2010. 2. The records of S.A. 221 of 2009 reveals that the court’s order dated 16.07.2010 was also communicated to the concerned counsel. I.A. No. 1251 of 2023 3. The interlocutory application No. 1251 of 2023 has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 4536 days in filing the restoration petition. It has been filed on 04.02.2023 after expiry of about 13 years. Along with the said interlocutory application, the communication 2025:JHHC:26059 2 received by the counsel from the registry has also been annexed which was served on him on 08.09.2010. There is enormous delay in filing the petition for condonation of delay even the records of the S.A. 221 of 2009 appears to have been destroyed and only the order sheet is available. However, the petition for condonation of delay only mentions that the petitioners are poor and rustic villagers and that is why they could not contact and arrange money to file restoration petition on the stipulated period. 4. Paragraph 5 and 6 of the interlocutory application No.1251 of 2023 are quoted as under:- “5 That it is submitted that due to inadvertence the remaining defects i.e. defect No. 1, 2, 3 and 5 could not be removed within time stipulated so the Second Appeal was rejected on 24.07.2010 due to non-compliance of Hon’ble Court’s order dated 16.07.2010. The office has intimated about the rejection of second appeal on 08.09.2010 through rejection slip dated 08.09.2010. A photocopy of the rejection slip dated 08.09.2010 supplied by the office is being annexed and same is marked as Annexure-1. That the limitation for filing restoration petition expired on 23.08.2010. 6. That it is submitted and stated that the Petitioners are the poor and rustic villagers and that is why they could not contact & arrange money to file restoration petition within time stipulated.” 5. The explanation of condonation of delay for 4536 days is not at all satisfactory. Being not satisfied with the explanation seeking condonation of enormous delay through I.A No. 1251 of 2023 in filing the C.M.P. no. 127 of 2023 seeking restoration of second appeal which stood dismissed for non-removal of defects way back 24.07.2010, I.A No. 1251 of 2023 seeking condonation of delay is hereby dismissed. C.M.P. 127 of 2023 6. Consequently, this CMP for restoration is also dismissed. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Rakesh/-