2026:JHHC:24414 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 318 of 2007 1. Most. Kalawati Devi, (63 Yrs.) w/o Late Chandra Kishore Mahto, 2. Bijay Kishore Goutam, (48 Yrs.) 3. Hare Kishore Goutam, (39 Yrs.) Both sl. No. 2 & 3 are the sons of Late Chandra Kishore Mahto; 4. Sunita Kumari (46 Yrs.) 5. Binita Kumari (37 Yrs.) 6. Anita Kumari (35 Yrs.) 7. Gudia Rani (32 Yrs.), All Sl. No. 4 to 7 d/o Late Chandra Kishore 8. Shila Kumari (65 Yrs.) d/o late Ram Bilash Mahto 9. Jamuna Prasad Mahto (71 Yrs.) s/o Late Gupteshwar Mahto 10. Ganga Prasad Mahto (69 Yrs.) s/o Late Gupteshwar Mahto 11. Sarjoo Prasad Mahto (66 yrs.) s/o Late Gupteshwar Mahto 12. (a) Arti Devi (63 Yrs.), w/o Late Bindeshwari Prasad Mahto (b)Chandan Prasad Mahto (45 Yrs.) s/o Late Bindeshwari Prasad Mahto Both r/o village P.O Manjra P.S Kasmar District Bokaro (c) Sandhya Kumari (40 yrs.) d/o late Bindeshwari Prasad Mahto, w/o Sri Jai Prakash Mahto, R/o village Mathari, P.O Jargo, P.S Jhalda District Purulia West Bengal. (d) Sulekha Kumari, d/o Late Bindeshwari Prasad Mahto, w/o Sri Thakur Mahto, r/o village Peretorang P.O Gagi P.S Baghmundi District Purulia West Bengal (e) Sumita Kumari (31yrs.) d/o Late Bindeshwari Prasad Mahto r/o village P.O Manjra P.S Kasmar District Bokaro 13. Dilip Kumar Mahto (56 Yrs.) 14. Tej Narayan Mahto (53 Yrs.) 15. Navin Kumar Mahto (49 Yrs.) 16. Binay Kumar Mahto (43 Yrs.) 17. Savinay Kumar Mahto (41 Yrs.) sl. 13 to 17 s/o Late Kailash Chandra Mahto 18. Uma Devi (58 Yrs.) Late Kailash Chandra Mahto, w/o Sri Tulsi Mahto r/o village P.O Murpa P.S Kuju, District Hazaribagh 19. Madhubala Devi (47 Yrs.) d/o Late Kailash Chandra Mahto, w/o Sri Gajo Mahto village Garbudih, P.O, P.S Pytki, Dist Dhanbad 20. Sarita Devi (45 Yrs.) d/o Late Kailash Chandra Mahto w/o Sri Suresh Mahto r/o village Gokulnagar, P.O, P.S Jhalda District Purulia West Bengal 21. Sunil Kumar Mahto (75 yrs.) s/o Late Raghunandan Mahto 22. Brajnandan Mahto (65 yrs) s/o Late Jainandan Mahto 23. Sumitra Nandan Mahto (61 yrs.) s/o late Jainandan Mahto 24. Deoki Nandan Rao (54 Yrs.) s/o Late Jainandan Mahto 25. Sheo Nandan Mahto @ Shyam Nandan Mahto (69 Yrs.) s/o Late Jainandan Mahto 26. Nand Kumar Mahto (58 Yrs.) s/o late Sunil Kumar 27. Giriwar Kumar Mahto (56 Yrs.) s/o Late Sunil Kumar 28. Punam Kumari (48 Yrs.) d/o Late Sunil Kumar 29. Neelam Kumari (44 Yrs.) d/o Late Sunil Kumar 2026:JHHC:24414 2 All sl.1 to 18 and sl. 21 to 29, r/o village and P.O Manjura P.S Kasmar District Bokaro. … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) 2. Khunu Bala Devi (Deleted vide order dt. 23/09/2022) 3. Manoj Kumar Jha, w/o late Dinesh Chandra Jha 4. Mukteshwar Jha, s/o Late Dinesh Chandra Jha All sl. 2 to 4 are r/o village and P.O Manjura P.S Kasmar District Bokaro 5. Rekha Devi d/o Late Dinesh Chandra Jha & w/o Late Santosh Kumar Jha r/o village Ojhadih Tola Girdhartand P.O, P.S Pindrajora, District Bokaro 6. Dulu Bala Devi d/o Late Dinesh Chandra Jha, w/o Sri Rakhohari Pathak r/o Ranipokhar, P.O, P.S Sector 9 District Bokaro. 7. Sandhya Devi d/o Late Dinesh Chandra Jha w/o Late Rakhohari Jha r/o village & P.O Badhadih P.S Chas (M) Kalapathar District Bokaro. 8. Lokesh Nath Jha s/o Late Govind Jha 9. Bhadubala Devi w/o Late Yogesh Chandra Jha s/o Late Satyanarayan Jha. 10. (a) Supriya Jha, w/o late Vikash Chandra Jha (b) Smriti Jha, d/o late Vikash Chandra Jha (c) Mohit Kumar Jha, s/o late Vikash Chandra Jha All r/o village & P.O Manjura, P.S Kasmar District Bokaro 11. Prakash Chandra Jha, s/o Late Yogesh Chandra Jha 12. Alok Chandra Jha, s/o Late Yogesh Chandra Jha Sl. No. 8 to 12 r/o village & P.O Manjura P.S Kasmar District Bokaro 13. Rupa Devi d/o Late Yogesh Chandra Jha (s/o Late Satyanarayan Jha) w/o Sri Bholanath Jha r/o village Ichak P.O Pillai, P.S Jhalda District Purulia West Bengal 14. Mana Devi d/o Late Yogesh Chandra Jha (s/o Late Satyanarayan Jha) w/o Sri Goutam Kumar Jha r/o village Bishwanathdih, P.O Kashi Jhariya, P.S Pindrajora District Bokaro. 15. (a) Mosomat Aadu Jha, w/o late Suresh Chandra Jha (b) Tripurari Jha s/o Late Suresh Chandra Jha (c) Uttam Jha, s/o late Suresh Chandra Jha All r/o village and P.O Manjura P.S Kasamr District Bokaro at present resident at Sector IX A Qr. No. 42 Street no. 11 P.S Bokaro Steel City District Bokaro. (d)Rima Jha d/o late Suresh Chandra Jha, w/o Sri Amit Jha r/o Chas Saraswati Nagar, near Chas Block P.O, P.S Chas District Bokaro 16. Mosomat Santa Deviya w/o Late Mahesh Chandra Jha s/o Late Satyanarayan Jha residing at Qr. No. 374 Sector 9/A P.O Sector 9/A P.S Harla District Bokaro 17. Geeta Devi d/o Late Satya Narayan Jha w/o Sri Mhadev Ojha r/o village Korcha, P.O-Bhengra, P.S & District-Purulia West Bengal. (deleted vide order dated 13.02.2026) 18. Mritunjay Chandra Jha s/o Late Niranjan Chandra Jha 19. Adher Chandra Jha s/o Late Niranjan Chandra Jha 20. Sudhir Jha s/o Late Niranjan Chandra Jha Sl. 18 to 20 r/o village & P.O Manjura P.S Kasmar District Bokaro. 21. Most. Mina Devi w/o Late Randhir Jha 2026:JHHC:24414 3 22. Biswajit Kumar s/o Late Randhir Kumar Jha 23. Gayitri Kumari d/o Late Randhir Kumar Jha 24. Santosh Kumar Jha s/o Late Sum Puran Jha 25. Ashutosh Kumar Jha s/o Late Sum Puran Jha 26. Nil Kumar Jha s/o Late Sum Puran Jha 27. Ram Kinkar Jha s/o Late Basant Kumar Jha 28. Amar Chandra Jha s/o Late Basant Kumar Jha 29. Harodhan Jha s/o late Basant Kumar Jha 30. Jitendra Jha s/o Late Basant Kumar Jha 31. (a) Deodas Jha s/o Late Chandra Shekhar Jha (b) Bishnu Jha s/o Late Chandra Shekhar Jha Both r/o village and P.O Manjura P.S Kasmar District Bokaro (c) Punam Jha d/o late Chandra Shekhar Jha w/o Sri Ranjeet Jha r/o village Dugda basti (Brahman tola) P.O Karmatand P.S Dugda District Bokaro 32. Deepak Kumar Jha s/o Late Anil Kumar Jha 33. Mrs. Kalpana Jha d/o Late Nirmal Chandra Jha 34. Vivek Chandra Jha s/o Late Nirmal Chandra Jha 35. Vikki Kumar Jha s/o Late Nirmal Chandra Jha Sl. 21 to 35 r/o village and P.O Manjura P.S Kasmar District Bokaro 36. Gudiya Kumari @ Sangita Jha d/o late Nirmal Chandra Jha w/o Sri Goutam Kumar Jha r/o village and P.O Deoli P.S Santhaldih Thermal District Purulia West Bengal. 37. Pramod Chandra Jha s/o Late Anil Kumar Jha 38. (a) Smt. Balika Devya w/o late Santosh Kumar Jha (b) Yadu Kumar Jha s/o Late Santosh Kumar Jha All r/o village and P.O Chandipur P.S Kasmar District Bokaro (c) Ruma Devi d/o late Santosh Kumar Jha w/o Sri Nitu Kumar Jha r/o village and P.O Chasnala P.S Pathardih District Dhanbad 39. The Deputy Commissioner Bokaro P.O P.S Bokaro District Bokaro 40. The Circle Officer Kasmar, P.O.P.S Kasmar District Bokaro … … Opp. Parties 41. The Secretary Chandrapura Matsjibi Co-operative Society Chandrapura P.O Chandrapura P.S Chandrapura District Bokaro (not a party in this C.M.P. but name has been included in the memo of parties as furnished by the petitioners). --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioners : Mr. H. K. Mahato, Advocate : Ms. Jyotsna Mahato, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar, AC to G.A.-V For Private Opp. Parties : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate --- 41/14.08.2026 Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this CMP has been filed for restoration of CMP No. 38 of 2005. The learned counsel 2026:JHHC:24414 4 submits that the S.A. No. 280 of 2004 was dismissed on 08.11.2004 on account of non-compliance of Court’s order dated 11.10.2004 by which four weeks’ time was granted for removal of defects. Consequently, on 27.01.2005, CMP No. 38 of 2005 was filed for restoration of S.A. No. 280 of 2004 and the said CMP was dismissed for non-compliance/part compliance of Court’s order dated 09.01.2006, inasmuch as, the notice/process on limitation was not filed within the stipulated time of two weeks. Thereafter, the petitioners filed C.M.P. No. 101 of 2007 on 11.04.2007 for restoration of 2nd appeal which was held to be not maintainable as the CMP No. 38 of 2005 was first required to be restored and consequently, vide order dated 20.07.2007, the CMP No. 101 of 2007 was withdrawn for non-maintainability, but with a liberty to file a fresh CMP. Thereafter, the present CMP No. 318 of 2007 has been filed for restoration of CMP No. 38 of 2005. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is delay of 516 days in filing the present CMP. He has further submitted that all the legal heirs of the concerned party have been placed on record by filing fresh cause title before this Court on 23.12.2025 and as per the new cause-title, the opposite party nos. 3 to 38(c) are the private opposite parties and opposite party nos. 1, 39 and 40 are the State authorities. 4. Learned counsel for the private opposite parties has opposed the prayer for restoration and has submitted that the petitioners have been throughout negligent and the 2nd appeal was not even admitted. It was running in defects. He has also submitted that the explanation with respect to delay in filing the present CMP seeking restoration of another C.M.P. is not proper and otherwise also, the petition is fit to be dismissed. 5. The learned counsel submits that one of the parties namely, “The secretary Chandrapura Matsjibi Co-operative Society Chandrapura P.O Chandrapura P.S Chandrapura District Bokaro” was a party in the 2nd appeal and in this petition seeking restoration, the said authority has not been made a party but in the fresh cause title 2026:JHHC:24414 5 the name of “The secretary Chandrapura Matsjibi Co-operative Society Chandrapura P.O Chandrapura P.S Chandrapura District Bokaro” has been shown as Respondent no.41, that too without seeking the leave of this court. 6. Learned counsel for the private opposite parties has submitted that in the aforesaid circumstances, the fresh party position which has been furnished by the learned counsel for the petitioners including the “The secretary Chandrapura Matsjibi Co-operative Society Chandrapura” cannot be accepted as the said secretary was never made party in the restoration petition. 7. To the objection raised by the private opposite parties, the learned counsel for the petitioners has no explanation as to why ‘The Secretary Chandrapura Matsjibi Co-operative Society Chandrapura P.O Chandrapura P.S Chandrapura District Bokaro’ has not been made party in this restoration application. 8. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties, this Court finds that the 2nd appeal being S.A. No. 280 of 2004 filed way back in the year 2004 stood dismissed for non-removal of defects as back as on 08.11.2004. Thereafter, application seeking restoration of the 2nd appeal was filed being CMP No. 38 of 2005 which was also dismissed for non-compliance of Court’s order on 24.01.2006 as steps for issuance of notice on the point of limitation was not taken within the time granted by this court. Subsequently, another CMP was filed being CMP No. 101 of 2007 which was withdrawn as it was not maintainable and then the present CMP No. 318 of 2007 has been filed for restoration of CMP No. 38 of 2005 with a petition seeking condonation of delay of 516 days. The sequence of events is as follows:- 08.11.2004 S.A. No. 280 of 2004 was dismissed for non-compliance of the Court’s Order dated 11.10.2004 where four weeks’ time was granted to remove the defects pointed out by the stamp reporting. 2026:JHHC:24414 6 27.01.2005 C.M.P. No. 38 of 2005 was filed for restoration of S.A. No. 280 of 2004 which was also barred by limitation. 24.01.2006 C.M.P. No. 38 of 2005 was dismissed for non-compliance/part compliance of Court’s order dated 09.01.2006, notice/process on limitation was not filed within stipulated/peremptory time of two weeks. 11.04.2007 The petitioners were completely silent for more than 1 year 2 ½ months and then, C.M.P. No. 101 of 2007 was filed for restoration of S.A. No. 280 of 2004 instead of seeking restoration of C.M.P. No. 38 of 2005. 20.07.2007 C.M.P. No. 101 of 2007 was withdrawn as not maintainable but with liberty to file a fresh C.M.P. 24.07.2007 C.M.P. No. 318 of 2007 was filed for restoration of C.M.P. No. 38 of 2005 (which was dismissed in January, 2006) along with a petition seeking condonation of delay of 516 days. 9. This Court is of the view that the petitioners have been throughout negligent in conducting the case and there is no explanation for not taking any steps for restoration of the present CMP No. 38 of 2005. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the petition for condonation of delay are quoted as under: - “5. That inadvertently there was communication gap between the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the Petitioners’ Pairvikar and hence proper steps couldn’t be taken to comply order dated 09.01.06 to its spirit and ultimately it was dismissed on 24.01.2006 for non-compliance /part compliance. 2026:JHHC:24414 7 6. That one of the Appellants/Petitioners namely, Girivar Kumar Mahto eager to know about the stage of Appeal in the Ist week of February, 2007 from the Learned Lawyer appearing in the High Court and came to know that the same was dismissed for non-payment of Court fees. He requested him to give the details about the same, and the ways out and remedies further.” 10. There is no proper explanation for the period of more than a year as C.M.P. No. 38/2005 was dismissed on 24.01.2006 for not filing requisites for service of notice on limitation matter as C.M.P. No. 38/2005 seeking restoration of the second appeal was also barred by limitation. Further the steps were taken for the first time only on 11.04.2007 which is apparent from the aforesaid list of dates. 11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petition seeking condonation of delay of 516 days through I.A. No. 2109 of 2007 in filing restoration petition of previous restoration petition relating to restoration of S.A. No. 280 of 2004, is not fit to be allowed in absence of cogent explanation for condonation of delay as explained above. 12. This Court is of the considered view that the petitioners have been grossly negligent in conducting the S.A. No. 280 of 2004 and also conducting the cases relating to restoration of second appeal. Not only the second appeal was dismissed for non-removal of defects, but petition seeking restoration of second appeal was dismissed for non- compliance of court’s order and was also barred by limitation and further another application seeking restoration of previous restoration application is also barred by limitation, which is the present one, without any cogent explanation for delay as mentioned above. 13. This is over and above the fact that ‘The Secretary Chandrapura Matsjibi Co-operative Society Chandrapura P.O Chandrapura P.S Chandrapura District Bokaro’ who was admittedly a party in the second appeal, has not been made party in this petition seeking restoration. 2026:JHHC:24414 8 14. I.A. No. 2109 of 2007 is dismissed. 15. Consequently, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition seeking restoration is also dismissed. 16. Any other pending interlocutory application is closed. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order: 14.08.2026 Pankaj Date of Uploading: 20.08.2026