Umaayush Multicom Private Limited v. The State of Jharkhand

The Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro 4. Mahendra Kumar Mishra, S/o Shri Bishwanath Mishra, R/o Plot No.210, Sonatand, PO- Siwandih, PS- Marafari, District- Bokaro, Jharkhand- 827010.

Director

Izhar Hussain, S/o Late Sheikh Bada Babu Ansari, R/o Village- Ukrid, PO and PS- Sector 12, District- Bokaro, Jharkhand- 827012. In Charge, Bokaro Steel Plant, having office at Administrative Building, Ispat Bhawan, PO and PS- Bokaro Steel City, District- Bokaro, Jharkhand- 827001. … …. Opp. Parties ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner ----- : Mr. Rupesh Singh, Advocate M/s Siddhartha Singh, Raunak Sahay, Srikant Swaroop, V. Kumari, Advocates : Mr. Manoj Kumar, G.A.-III : M/s Indrajit Sinha & Bibhash Sinha, Advss. For the State For the O.P. No.6 ----- Oral Order 05 / Dated : 22.08.2025. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

The instant civil misc. petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 21.04.2025 passed in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 08 of 2025, by which delay of 1086 days in preferring miscellaneous appeal, in filing the first appeal under Section 87(2) of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 has been condoned.

Petitioner-company claims to have purchased the land measuring an area of 55.96 acres by registered sale deeds from one Ijhar 1 Hussain. The said land was settled in favour of Ijhar Hussain by Suit No. 4330 of 2013. The order of settlement has been challenged in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 08 of 2025, which has been admitted by condoning the delay against which the present civil miscellaneous petition has been filed.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the delay of 1086 days has been condoned in filing the first appeal. The said condonation has been made without even issuing notice to the respondents which is a mandatory requirement under Order XLI Rule 3A of CPC.

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that mandate of law under Order XLI Rule 3A CPC is plain and specific that when a petition filed for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is considered, notice shall be sent Respondents. In the judgment reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Pat. 4323, the High Court of Patna had occasion to consider the provision as contained under Order XLI Rule 3A CPC. It has been held in this case that the requirement to serve notice was mandatory in nature and the Appellate Court cannot condone the delay without issuing notice for hearing to the respondents on the issue of condonation of delay.

5. It is submitted that the limitation can apply equally to State as well as to the private party(s) and the plea that the delay occasioned in filing appeal for the laches on the part of the departmental officers cannot be a ground for condoning the delay as held by the Apex Court in (2012)3 SCC 563.

6. Learned counsel for the State does not dispute that notices were not issued to the respondents while hearing the petition for condonation of delay filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

It is however, submitted that the mandate of law as enshrined under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been extensively dealt with in the judgment reported in 2021 (7) SCC 313, wherein it has been held that for condonation of delay, if there are sufficient grounds for setting aside the said delay, even then petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not required and the same can be condoned on mere oral submission. 2

It is further argued that issuance of notice is not a mandatory requirement as per the ratio laid down in Bhagwan S/O Ganpatrao Godsay vs. Kachrulal S/O Bastimal Samdariya [in the equivalent Citations : 1987 (2) BOMCR 153].

Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides and perusing the materials on record including the impugned order, it appears that the learned First Appellate Court has noted that the order passed in Case No.4330 of 2013 which was under- challenge, was obtained without impleading the Divisional Forest Officer as a party. Therefore, the Divisional Forest Officer [DFO] could not know about passing of the said order. Only when the fraud came to the light then the appeal was filed. There appears to be some merit in the ground for condonation of delay, law is settled that fraud unravels the entire proceeding.

Both the parties will appear before the learned Principal District Judge, Bokaro for hearing in the matter on 08.09.2025 and in the event of non-appearance of any of the sides, learned First Appellate Court will proceed as per the law. The instant CMP stands disposed of. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) AKT/Satyendra/Sandeep 3