Most. Kalawati Devi vs State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)

Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J

I.A. No.11509 of 2025

The learned counsels for the parties are present.

This petition has been filed by the opposite party pointing out certain discrepancy in the name of the substituted legal heirs of opposite party nos.10 and 38.

The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that I.A. No.11506 of 2024 was allowed after hearing the learned counsel for the opposite parties, who had submitted on 11.07.2025 that the names of legal heirs and successors of opposite party no.10 has been rightly mentioned in I.A. No.11506 of 2024. Further by the same order dated 11.07.2025, I.A. No.8440 of 2022 was allowed in connection with substitution of opposite party nos.15 and 38 recording that the learned counsel for the opposite parties had no objection to the prayer for substitution.

The learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the substitution petition was based on the names of legal heirs and successors, which have been substituted in the Execution Case No.5 of 2015 arising out of the same suit, which is the subject matter of the present appeal. He submits that the petition being I.A. No.11509 of 2025 be rejected.

The fact that the prayer for substitution was allowed after hearing the learned counsel for the parties cannot be disputed and it appears that substitution has been carried out in the connected execution case also.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances this Court is not inclined to allow I.A. No.11509 of 2025, which is accordingly dismissed.

I.A. No.4522 of 2022

This interlocutory application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 136 days in filing the instant civil miscellaneous petition.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties on the interlocutory application seeking condonation of delay.

The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the case was dismissed on account of non-removal of defects.

The learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to paragraph 2 of the interlocutory application and submitted that CMP No.318 of 2007 was dismissed on account of non-compliance of order dated 05.04.2019 and the office memo regarding dismissal was served upon the learned counsel for the petitioners on 10.04.2019 and thereafter steps were taken and, in the meantime, there was summer vacation and ultimately this petition for restoration has been filed.

The learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayer for condonation of delay and submits that the delay has not been properly explained.

After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case and being satisfied with the cause shown, the prayer for condonation of delay through I.A. No.4522 of 2022 is hereby allowed.

CMP No.717 of 2019

This petition has been filed for restoration of CMP No.318 of 2007, which was dismissed on 10.04.2019 for non-compliance of order dated 05.04.2019.

The learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to paragraphs 3 and 4 of the civil miscellaneous petition.

The learned counsel for the opposite parties has opposed the prayer.

However, after going through the interlocutory application and being satisfied with the cause shown, the prayer for restoration of CMP No.318 of 2007 is allowed and CMP No.717 of 2019 is hereby disposed of.

Office is directed to post CMP No.318 of 2007 on 14.11.2025.

In the meantime, the learned counsel for the petitioners undertakes and is permitted to comply with the order dated 05.04.2019 passed in CMP No.318 of 2007.