2026:JHHC:4141 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 235 of 2024 1. Lakhpati Mahto @ Lakhpat Mahto, aged about 77 years, son of Late Kali Mahto 2. Damodar Mahto, aged about 49 years, son of Late Kali Mahto 3. Shyamadeo Mahto, aged about 48 years, son of Late Kali Mahto 4. Chhoti Mahto @ Chhotan Mahto, aged about 47 years, son of Late Kali Mahto 5. Praveen Kumar Verma, aged about 36 years, son of Late Sitan mahto @ Sital Mahto All resident of village Dhengadih, P.O. & P.S. Deori, District Giridih … … Petitioners -Versus- 1. Pyari Mahto, son of Fatu Mahto 2. Umesh Verma, son of Late Sukhdeo Mahto 3. Most. Tulsi Devi, widow of Late Dwarika Verma (daughter-in-law) 4. Smt. Tetiya Devi, wife of Pyari Mahto 5. Smt. Geeta Devi, wife of Sukhdeo Mahto All resident of Baratand, P.O. & P.S. Deori, Dist. Giridih … … Opp. Parties --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioners : Mr. Arpit Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : --- 04/13th February 2026 1. This petition has been filed for restoration of C.M.P. No. 714 of 2012 to its original file, which has been dismissed due to non-appearance of the counsel vide order dated 30.06.2017. I.A. No. 16896 of 2025 2. This interlocutory application has been filed seeking leave of this Court to delete the name of petitioner no. 2, namely, Sitan Mahto @ Sital Mahto and petitioner no. 6, namely, Sundarwa Devi from the cause title of C.M.P. No. 714 of 2012 and further to pursue the case impleading their legal heirs as appellant in place of them. 2026:JHHC:4141 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that that the petitioner Nos. 2 and 6 in C.M.P. No. 714 of 2012 have expired after filing of C.M.P. No. 714 of 2012, which was dismissed for default and therefore, the petitioner nos. 2 and 6 in C.M.P. No. 714 of 2012 have not been made party in the present proceedings. He submits that the legal heir of petitioner no. 2, namely, Sitan Mahto @ Sital Mahto is Praveen Kumar Verma and the legal heirs of petitioner no. 6, namely, Sundarwa Devi is already on record. The learned counsel submits that he has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of Praveen Kumar Verma. He submits that appropriate order may be passed. 4. Considering the aforesaid submission, the defect in connection with non-inclusion of name of Sitan Mahto @ Sital Mahto and Sundarwa Devi is ignored. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to add legal heir of Shitan Mahto @ Sital Mahto as petitioner no. 5 in this proceeding. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners is also directed to carry out necessary insertion in the cause title and also change the sequence of the petitioners. 7. I.A. No. 16896 of 2025 is hereby disposed of. I.A. No. 8262 of 2025 8. This petition has been filed vide affidavit dated 01.07.2025 for condonation of delay of 1707 days in filing the present C.M.P. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that S.A. No. 279 of 2009 was dismissed for non-compliance of peremptory order dated 31.07.2010 and was dismissed on 09.08.2010. Thereafter, for restoration of S.A. No. 279 of 2009, C.M.P. No. 714 of 2012 was filed, which was also dismissed due to non-appearance of the counsel on 30.06.2017. The learned counsel submits that the then conducting counsel of C.M.P. No. 714 of 2012 did not communicate the order dated 30.06.2017 passed in in C.M.P. No. 714 of 2012 to the appellants and the appellants were unaware 2026:JHHC:4141 3 about the order passed on 30.06.2017 and when they came to know about the order, they filed the present C.M.P. after delay of 1707 days. 10. The learned counsel has also submitted that the appellants are elderly individuals and are suffering from various age-related medical conditions. He has also submitted that the Second Appeal was not admitted for hearing. 11. This court finds that no document has been annexed showing the medical condition of one or the other petitioner in the present petition seeking enormous delay of 1707 days in filing the present C.M.P., which itself is an application seeking restoration of C.M.P. No. 714 of 2012, which in turn has been filed for restoration of Second Appeal, which was dismissed on 09.08.2010 for non-compliance of peremptory order dated 31.07.2010. Admittedly, the 2nd appeal was not admitted. 12. Absolutely, vague statements have been made in the petition seeking condonation of delay and even the date of knowledge of dismissal of C.M.P. No. 714 of 2012 has not been mentioned in the interlocutory application. 13. As per C.M.P. No. 235 of 2024, which is under consideration, one of the petitioners, namely, Damodar Mahto is only 49 years of age, the other petitioner Shyamadeo Mahto is 48 years of age and the petitioner, namely, Chhoti Mahto @ Chhotan Mahto is 47 years of age and only one of the petitioners, namely, Lakhpati Mahto is 77 years of age. There is no question of any age-related medical conditions with respect to at least three of the petitioners. 14. The petition seeking condonation of delay in filing the present C.M.P. is absolutely vague and casual and no sufficient explanation much less cogent explanation has been furnished in the petition seeking condonation of delay. 15. This Court is not satisfied with the cause shown in the petition seeking codonation of delay of 1707 days in filing the present C.M.P., which has been filed for restoration of another C.M.P. No. 714 of 2012, 2026:JHHC:4141 4 which in turn was filed seeking restoration of second appeal being S.A. No. 279 of 2009 and the said second appeal was also dismissed for non- compliance of peremptory order dated 31.07.2010. 16. Accordingly, I.A. No. 8262 of 2025 seeking condonation of delay is dismissed. 17. In view of the aforesaid C.M.P. No. 235 of 2024 is also dismissed. 18. Pending I.A., if any, is closed. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 13.02.2026 Uploaded On: 14.02.2026 Mukul/-