✦ Jharkhand High Court

Amal Kishore Mahato v. Uttam Maity

JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M.A No. 137 of 2016GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

Case at a glance

Outcome

Dismissed

delay is rejected and the miscellaneous appeal is dismissed on the point of

Provisions considered

Key paragraphs

  • Para 22. There is delay in filing the instant miscellaneous appeal for delay of 508 days for which I.A. No.4838 of 2016 was filed for condoning the delay. The ground of delay is that the appellant was suffering from Liver Cirrhosis and was under treatment and…

Judgment

1.

Uttam Maity 2. Balram Mahato 3. Smt. Mem Mahato 4. Nuna Mahato 5. Chuna Mahato 6. Bhim Mahato 7. Smt. Burhi Mahato 8. Khudi Ram Mahato 9. Muni Ram Mahato 10. Nitai Mahato 11. Savitri Mahato 12. Pustari Mahato 13. Pudun Manato 14. Madan Mahato 15. Karuna Mahato 16. Anita Mahato 17. Purnima Mahato 18. Bilashi Mahto 19. Gurucharan Mahato 20. Ananta Mahato .... .... .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Appellant For the Respondents : Mr. Nagmani Tiwari, Advocate : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate Oral Order 07/ Dated : 09.12.2022 Instant miscellaneous appeal has been filed against the order dated

03.07.2014 passed in Title Suit No.140 of 2013 by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-II, Jamshedpur whereby and whereunder the learned Court below rejected the petition under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C.

Operative part

2.

There is delay in filing the instant miscellaneous appeal for delay of 508 days for which I.A. No.4838 of 2016 was filed for condoning the delay. The ground of delay is that the appellant was suffering from Liver Cirrhosis and was under treatment and was advised by Doctor of M.G.M. hospital, Jamshedpur for complete bed rest. In reply to the I.A. filed on behalf of respondents, it has been contended that it was false statement made that the appellant was suffering from Liver Cirrhosis. In support of this, an information under Right to Information was obtained by respondent No.1 regarding the appellant’s admission to the hospital and issuance of medical certificate dated 28.07.2017 which has been enclosed with the I.A. for condonation of delay. In the information furnished by M.G.M. hospital which is annexed with the reply, it has been stated that that no such person was admitted in the hospital during the said period. Further in this period, the appellant was also taken into custody in police case which denies the statement that he was under treatment therefore, there was delay in filing miscellaneous appeal. Under the circumstance, I.A. No.4838 of 2016 for condonation of delay is rejected and the miscellaneous appeal is dismissed on the point of admission. Anit (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: delay is rejected and the miscellaneous appeal is dismissed on the point of

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. XXXIX rr. 1, 2.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Jharkhand High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M.A No. 137 of 2016). ← Search more judgments