High CourtsSingle Bench(2018) 04 JH CK 0054

GOLA HO, S/O LATE CHUMRU HO vs STATE OF JHARKHAND

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 2 April 2018

HON’BLE JUDGES
SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
W.P.(C) No. 6221 of 2009

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

13 paragraphs · 271 words
1.

Two divergent prayers have been made by the petitioners in the writ petition. The petitioners have challenged order dated 28.08.1992 passed in

Kolhan Title Suit No.200 of 1988 and they have also challenged order dated 21.10.2008 passed in Mutation Case No.19 of 2007-08.

2.

At the outset it needs to be recorded that against order dated 21.10.2008 an appeal shall lie under section 15 of the Bihar Tenants Holdings

(Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 and accordingly challenge to order dated 21.10.2008 passed in Mutation Case No.19 of 2007-08 is held not

maintainable, on the ground of availability of the statutory remedy of appeal. The petitioners may prefer appeal under section 15 of the Bihar Tenants

Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act within six weeks.

3.

Order dated 28.08.1992 passed in Kolhan Title Suit No.200 of 1988 is the order by which challenge to an ex-parte order passed in Kolhan Title Suit

No.33 of 1966 has been dismissed, on the ground of limitation. The period of limitation cannot be extended by the court, however, if it is found that the

limitation has started to run from a date from where the appeal has come within the period of limitation, this issue can be examined by the appellate

court. The original order was passed on 16.10.1968, and except stating that they came to know about the said order in the year 1987 the petitioners

have not pleaded any material fact to establish that the appeal preferred by them was within the period of limitation.

4.

In the above facts, finding no merit in the writ petition it is dismissed.

   Â