2026:JHHC:17908 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 20 of 2024 ------- 1. Abdul Manan, aged about 75 years, S/o Late Multazim 2. Perwej Akhtar, age about 50 years, S/o Late Anwar Nabi 3. Firoz Akhtar, age about 43 years, S/o Late Anwar Nabi 4. Ifat Aara, age about 41 years, D/o Late Anwar Nabi 5. Ishrat Aara, age about 47 years, D/o Late Anwar Nabi 6. Ashmat Aara, age about 53 years, D/o Late Anwar Nabi 7. Nuzhat Aara, age about 37 years, D/o Late Anwar Nabi 8. Md. Nasim, age about 63 years, S/o Late Multazim 9. Md. Nazim, age 53 years, S/o Late Md. Multazim, All R/o Village & P.O. Chitarpur, P.S. Rajrappa Project, District Ramgarh. 10. Md. Minhaj, age about 61 years, S/o Late Rafiuddin @ Lattu Kala 11. Sajid @ Pintu, age about 45 years 12. Zahid @ Mintu, age about 37 years 13. Quasim @ Raja, age about 39 years 14. Shahid @ Chattu, age about 37 years, Nos.11 to 14 are sons of Late Md. Idrish 15. Sonu, age about 41 years 16. Tabrej, age about 35 years 17. Babua, age about 31 years Nos.15 to 17 are sons of Late Md. Seraj 18. Ishreth Bano, age about 55 years, wife of Late Md. Seraj All residents of Village & P.O. Chitarpur, P.S. Rajrappa Project, District Ramgarh. .... Petitioner(s). Versus 1. Md. Salim, son of Late Md. Qumruddin, resident of village & P.O. Chitarpur, P.S. Rajrappa Project, District Hazaribag (Now Ramgarh. 2. Saira Bano, wife of Late Md. Halim 3. Md. Naushad Alam 4. Md. Irshad Alam 5. Md. Amanullah Nos.3 to 5 are sons of late Md. Halim, Nos.2 to 5 are R/o Village Chitarpur, P.O. Chitarpur, P.S. Rajrappa Project, District Hazaribag, Now Ramgarh … Opposite Parties. ------- CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Ms. Reshma Kumari, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Nawal Kishore Pandey, Advocate ------ 10/ 19.06.2026: I.A. No.259 of 2024 1. This Interlocutory Application has been filed for condonation of delay of 547 days in filing this Civil Miscellaneous Petition for restoration of S.A. No.538 of 2018. 2. Mr. Nawal Kishore Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite parties opposes the prayer and submits that there are latches on the part of the petitioners, thus, the delay cannot be condoned. 3. The Second Appeal filed by the petitioner, was dismissed as the defects were not removed. Vide order dated 12.05.2022, this Court passed the following order for removing the defects: “7/12.05.2022 Appellants are directed to remove the defects, pointed out by the office, by 10th June, 2022, failing which this appeal shall stand rejected without any further reference to a Bench”. 4. The Second Appeal was filed on 13.12.2018 and till 2022 the defects were not removed. It was listed under the heading “For Orders with Defects” for removal of the defects on 12.05.2022 when peremptory time till 10th June, 2022 was granted to remove the defects and as the defects were not removed within the said time, S.A. No.538 of 2018 stood dismissed on 10.06.2022 due to non-compliance of the order dated 12.05.2022. Thereafter, no steps were taken for restoration, rather only on 09.01.2024 this restoration application was filed i.e. after the delay of 547 days. 5. After going through the records, I find that no sufficient ground has been shown to condone the delay. It is submitted that the petitioner came to Ranchi on 30.02.2024 to enquire about the status of the present appeal then he came to know about the dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance, thus this case has been filed. This is not a sufficient explanation to condone of delay. For two years, the petitioner slept over the matter and the reason given in the C.M.P. is absolutely unbelievable. Thus, I found no ground to condone the delay of 547 days. 6. Thus, I.A. No.259 of 2024 is dismissed. 7. Consequently, C.M.P. No.20 of 2024 is also dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 19th June, 2026 Madhav/- Uploaded on:22/06/2026 -2-