Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1069 (JHR)

Bagendra Nath Tiwari v. Shamdeo Singh

2022-08-26

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. The present civil revision has been preferred against the judgment dated 23.03.2013 passed by the Principal District Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in Title Appeal No. 13/2005 whereby the Court below has declined to hear the appeal filed under Section 96 of CPC. 2. I.A. No. 2119/2020 has been filed on behalf of the petitioners for condonation of delay of 2435 days in filing the present civil revision. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that some of the petitioners had earlier filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 3379/2013 before this Court challenging the impugned judgment dated 23.03.2013. The said writ petition, however, remained pending for considerable period and finally vide order dated 31.01.2020, the same was dismissed as withdrawn by a Bench of this Court with liberty to the petitioners to approach appropriate forum. Under the said circumstance, the delay of 2435 days in filing the present civil revision may be condoned. 4. In course of consideration of I.A. No. 2119/2020 filed for condonation of delay committed in filing the present civil revision, this Court also intends to go through the impugned judgement dated 23.03.2013 passed by the Principal District Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in Title Appeal No. 13/2005. On perusal of the said judgment, it appears that the Appellate Court declined to entertain the appeal on merit on the ground that the same was not maintainable in view of Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1894’]. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and on perusal of the present interlocutory application as well as the contents of the present writ petition, this Court is not inclined to condone the delay of 2435 days in filing the present civil revision. Otherwise also, the petitioners have failed to make out any case on merit so as to interfere with the impugned judgment dated 23.03.2013 passed by the Principal District Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in Title Appeal No. 13/2005. Section 54 of the Act, 1894 clearly stipulates that an appeal against the award or any part of the award of the Reference Court shall only lie to the High Court and from any decree of the High Court, further appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court, subject to the provisions contained in Section 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and in Order XLV thereof. I.A. No. 2119/2020 is accordingly dismissed. 6. Consequently, the present civil revision is also dismissed.