Deonath Munda vs Lohan Mahato and Others

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties on the prayer made on behalf of the appellant to coudone the delay in filing the appeal. Also perused the application tiled u/s 5 of the Limitation Act and the rejoinder filed thereto.

In the circumstances, we arc satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed time. Hence, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the limitation petition is allowed.

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties on the question of admission of the appeal.

Admittedly, father of the appellant had filed an application u/s 71-A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 which was dismissed. The learned Single Judge held that as the appellant had failed to prove that any fraud was practised on the father of the petitioner in getting his application dismissed, the order of dismissal of his earlier application filed u/s 71-A of the Act shall operate as res judicata to the second application filed on behalf of the appellant.

In the circumstances, we find no infirmity in the order under challenge. Hence, this appeal is dismissed.