2026:JHHC:17928 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 196 of 2024 ------- Kameshwar Yadav, aged about 54 years, son of Late Gulab Chand Yadav, resident of Village Pitzi, P.O. Pitzi, P.S. Itkhori, District Chatra (Jharkhand) .... Petitioner(s). Versus 1. Sunaina Devi, wife of Sri Ramchandra Saw @ Ramchandra Prasad Keshri. 2. Ramchandra Prasad Keshri, son of late Gandauri Sao, resident of Village Gulli, P.O. Pitiz, P.S. Itkhori, District Chatra, at present resident of Village Pitzi, P.O. Pitzi, P.S. Itkhori, District Chatra. 3. Kavita Devi, wife of Baijnath Yadav and daughter of Late Gulab Chand Yadav. 4. Sarita Devi, wife of Ram Bharose and daughter of Late Gulab Chand Yadav. 5. Suma Devi, wife of Sri Bhikhan Yadav and daughter of Late Gulab Chand Yadav. 6. Kauleshwar Yadav 7. Kamlesh Yadav 8. Kailash Yadav Nos.6 to 8 are sons of Late Gulab Chand Yadav. All residents of Village Pitzi, P.O. Pitzi, P.S. Itkhori, District Chatra. 9. Ghanshyam Yadav 10. Khedan Yadav 11. Shyamal Yadav Nos.9 to 11 are sons of Late Gurusahay Yadav 12. Bindeshwari Yadav 13. Mahendra Yadav 14. Ramdeo Yadav 15. Birbal Yadav Nos.12 to 15 are sons of Late Sohar Yadav, residents of Village Pitzi, P.O. Pitzi, P.S. Itkhori, District Chatra. 16. State of Jharkhand, through the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra, P.O., P.S. & District Chatra. 17. Anchal Adhikari, Itkhori, P.O. & P.S. Itkhori, District Chatra. 18. Baswa Devi, wife of Rambrich Yadav, resident of Village Dhebra, P.O., P.S. and District Chatra. 19. Kapurwa Devi, wife of Hari Yadav, resident of Village Indara, P.O. Dauri, P.S. Itkhori, District Chatra. 20. Rohan Yadav 21. Radhe Yadav 22. Makhuli Yadav Nos.20 to 22 sons of Late Bhekho Yadav, residents of Village Naya Khap, P.O. and P.S. Itkhori, District Chatra … Opposite Parties. ------- CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kundan Kumar Ambastha, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Prashant Kumar Rai, Advocate Mr. Vishwajit Chaturvedi, Advocate ------ 10/ 19.06.2026: I.A. No.17091 of 2025 1. This Interlocutory Application has been filed for condonation of delay of 584 days in filing this Civil Miscellaneous Petition for restoration of S.A. No.223 of 2019. 2. Learned counsel for the opposite parties opposes the prayer and submits that there are latches on the part of the petitioner, thus, the delay cannot be condoned. 3. The Second Appeal filed by the petitioner, was dismissed as the defects were not removed. In Second Appeal, vide order dated 09.06.2019 this Court passed the following order for removing the defects: “4/09.06.2022 Three weeks’ time, as prayed for, is granted to the appellants to remove the defects pointed out by the offfice, failing which this appeal shall stand rejected without any further reference to a Bench”. 4. The Second Appeal was filed on 16.07.2019 and till 2022 the defects were not removed. It was listed under the heading “For Orders with Defects” for removal of the defects on 09.06.2022 when three weeks’ peremptory time was granted to remove the defects and as the defects were not removed within the said time, S.A. No.223 of 2019 stood dismissed on 30.06.2022 due to non-compliance of the order dated 09.06.2022. Thereafter, no steps were taken for restoration, rather only on 05.03.2024 this restoration application was filed i.e. after the delay of 584 days. 5. After going through the records, I find that no sufficient ground has been shown to condone the delay. It is necessary to quote para 6 of the Interlocutory Application, which reads as under: “That it is stated that the petitioner came to Ranchi on 03.02.2024 to enquire about the present status of the Second Appeal and on enquiry from the counsel he came to know regarding the dismissal of the appeal on account of non-compliance of the Hon’ble Court’s order.” 6. This cannot be said to be sufficient explanation for condoning the delay in filing the C.M.P. Thus, for 584 days the petitioner slept over the matter and the reason given is not sufficient to condone the delay. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Balwant Singh v. Jagdish Singh, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 685 at paragraph Nos.25 and 26 has held as under: “25. We may state that even if the term “sufficient cause” has to receive -2- liberal construction, it must squarely fall within the concept of reasonable time and proper conduct of the party concerned. The purpose of introducing liberal construction normally is to introduce the concept of “reasonableness” as it is understood in its general connotation. 26. The law of limitation is a substantive law and has definite consequences on the right and obligation of a party to arise. These principles should be adhered to and applied appropriately depending on the facts and circumstances of a given case. Once a valuable right has accrued in favour of one party as a result of the failure of the other party to explain the delay by showing sufficient cause and its own conduct, it will be unreasonable to take away that right on the mere asking of the applicant, particularly when the delay is directly a result of negligence, default or inaction of that party. Justice must be done to both parties equally. Then alone the ends of justice can be achieved. If a party has been thoroughly negligent in implementing its rights and remedies, it will be equally unfair to deprive the other party of a valuable right that has accrued to it in law as a result of his acting vigilantly.” 7. In view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the facts of this case and the reasons assigned for condoning the delay, I am not inclined to condone the delay of 584 days. Accordingly, I.A. No.17091 of 2025 is dismissed. 8. Consequently, C.M.P. No.196 of 2024 is also dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 19th June, 2026 Madhav/- Uploaded on:23/06/2026 -3-