NAYAN MUNDA Vs. SUKRO DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the parties.

(2.) The case in brief is that the plaintiffs- respondents filed a Title Suit No. 23 of 1992 for adjudication of the right, title, interest and possession of the suit lands and further to restrain the defendant permanently from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the lands in question. The said suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs -respondents. Thereafter, the present appellants filed the Title Appeal No. 5 of 2000 against the Judgment and decree passed in the aforesaid Title Suit No. 23 of 1992. After the institution of the said Title Appeal, the proforma respondents died in due course and as such the appellants were directed to take necessary steps for notice to the substituted Proforma respondents No. 27(a) to 27(d) in the said Title Appeal. Thereafter in compliance of the said order though the requisite filed by the Advocate Clerk but by bonafide mistake the copy of the Memo of appeal was not filed and accordingly the said Title Appeal was dismissed for not compliance of the order as stated above. Thereafter, the appellants filed a Miscellaneous Case i.e. Misc Case No. 7 of 2005 for re-admitting/restoration of the said Title Appeal under order 41 Rule 19 of the C.P.C. After hearing the parties, the learned A.J.C. Ist, Khunti, rejected the said Miscellaneous Case No. 7 of 2005 by his order dated 29.1.2007, hence this appeal.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellants, has submitted that the appellants were not negligent. The said Title Appeal has been dismissed only due to the reason that by bonafide mistake of the Advocate's Clerk who could not file the Memo of Appeal according to the order given in the said Title Appeal No. 5 of 2000. It is also submitted that if the title appeal is not readmitted/restore, the appellants will suffer irreparable loss and injury.