2025:JHHC:10784 -1- C.M.P. No. 193 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 193 of 2024 1. Sunil Kumar Sinha, aged about 62 years 2. Sandeep Kumar Sinha, aged about 58 years Both sons of Nageshwar Prasad Sinha, R/o Kalhar (Lata Tola), P.O. Purnadih, P.S. Tundi, District- Dhanbad … Petitioner -Versus- 1. Chandrawati Devi, W/o Late Mahadeo Singh 2. Umesh Kumar Singh, S/o Late Mahadeo Singh 3. Mahesh Kumar Singh, S/o Late Mahadeo Singh All are R/o Bajrang Nagar, Ward No.14, P.O., P.S. & District- Koderma 4. Shivani Devi, W/o Late Pradeep Singh 5. Asha Kumar, D/o Late Pradeep Singh 6. Vikash Singh, S/o Late Pradeep Singh 7. Suresh Singh, S/o Late Pradeep Singh 8. Munni Devi, W/o Kishore Singh 9. Ramesh Singh, S/o Kishore Singh 10. Rakesh Kumar Singh, S/o Kishore Singh All are R/o Barsotiyabar, P.O., P.S. & District- Koderma 11. Kumkum Kumari, D/o Late Kishore Singh 12. Mahi Kumari, D/o Late Kishore Singh Both R/o Village Dandahi, P.O. & P.S. Jainagar, District- Koderma 13. Umashankar Singh, S/o Balulal Singh 14. Sachida Singh, S/o Late Babulal Singh 15. Parmanand Singh, S/o Late Babulal Singh All are R/o Padariya, P.O. & P.S. Markacho, District- Koderma 16. Geeta Devi, W/o Rameshwar Singh, R/o Village Mahavir Mohalla, Giridih Road, P.O., P.S. & District- Koderma … Opposite Parties ----- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ----- For the Petitioners : Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Kumar Amit, Advocate For the Opposite Parties : ----- 06/08.04.2025 Heard Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. 2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting-aside the order dated 20.04.2022 passed in Execution CaseNo.01/2010 arising out of Title Suit No.32 of 1987, Title Appeal No.50 of 1993 by the learned Sub Judge, 1st, Koderma, whereby, the objection filed by the petitioners was dismissed for non-prosecution. 2025:JHHC:10784 -2- C.M.P. No. 193 of 2024 3. Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that vide order dated 20.04.2022, learned Court has been pleased to reject the objection petition filed by the petitioners on the ground of not pressing the said petition. He submits that however the petitioners were ready to argue the matter. 4. From the impugned order, it transpires that the petition filed by the petitioners-intervenor has not been pressed before the learned Court and in view of that, the learned Court has passed the said order. There is nothing on the record to suggest that the learned Court has wrongly passed the said order. If the petitioners are filing petition before any Court, they are required to be vigilant and press the same diligently. Prima facie, it appears that only to delay the execution proceeding, such petition was filed and the same was not pressed. 5. In view of the above facts, there is no illegality in the impugned order and, as such, this petition is dismissed. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Ajay/