IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 59 of 2005.
---
Bhola Nath Prasad and others ... ... ... ... Appellants
Versus
Union of India and others ... ... ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR MERATHIA
---
For the Appellants : M/s. S. Choudhury and C.S. Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondents: None.
---
6. 9.2.2009
. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 10.6.2004
passed by the Additional District Judge-IV, Bokaro in Title Appeal No. 38
of 1999, whereby and whereunder, the judgment and decree dated 7.5.1999
passed by the Subordinate Judge, 2nd, Bermo at Tenughat in Title Suit No.
21 of 1998 was set aside and the matter was remitted for hearing afresh.
2. Mr. S. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the appellants,
submitted that without condoning the delay of about six months, the
appellate court could not have finally disposed of the appeal.
3. It appears that the suit filed by the appellants was decreed ex-parte.
4. An appeal was filed by the State-respondent nos. 3 to 5 herein, along
with a petition for condonation of delay. On 29.7.2002, after hearing
counsel for the appellants, the appeal was admitted, subject to limitation to
be decided at the time of hearing. Then an objection to the petition for
condonation of delay was filed on behalf of the appellants. The said order
dated 29.7.2002 was not challenged by the appellants. Accordingly, the
appeal was heard. The appellants took part in hearing. After hearing and
on recording good reasons, the appellate court set aside the ex-parte
judgment and decree under appeal and remanded the matter to the trial
court. Now, at this stage, the appellants cannot be heard to say that the
appellate court should have passed order on the petition for condoning the
delay in specific terms. It has to be accepted that the parties were heard on
the point of delay also in view of the said order dated 29.7.2002, at the time
of hearing of the appeal and the delay was condoned. Only because order,
in specific term, condoning the delay, has not been recorded in the
2.
impugned judgment, I am not inclined to interfere with the same in this
appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed.
(R. K. Merathia, J)
AKS.Cp.2.