RANCHI, India, Jan. 3 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Dec. 2:

Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

1. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. are the appellants and are aggrieved by the order dated 12.05.2016 passed by learned District & Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Chatra, in Revocation Case No.05 of 2014 whereby and whereunder, the petition filed under Order XLI Rule 19 read with Section 151 CPC for restoration of Money Appeal No.02 of 2006 has been dismissed for being barred by limitation.

2. The Respondent Nos.1 to 10 are the substituted legal heirs and representatives of the original plaintiff [Agarwal Yugal Kishore Prasad] who filed the Money Suit claiming Rs.1,96,267.63/- impleading the State and the principal Contractor, Mansukhlal Jain (defendant No.9) for the work completed in removing the debris accumulated on account of demolition of structure under encroachment removal drives during the drive from 03.08.1975 to 03.10.1975.

3. The said Money Suit was decreed against the State vide Judgment dated 31.08.2006 passed in Money Suit No.02 of 1994.

4. The appeal was preferred by the State within the stipulated period of time which dismissed for default on 13.01.2012 and restoration was filed after a delay of 2 years 2 months and 13 days (i.e. 803 days).

5. The restoration was held to be barred vide the impugned order against which, the instant Misc. Appeal has been preferred.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants- State that the judgment and decree ex-facie is not sustainable as the original plaintiff was a sub-contractor and working under Principal Contractor Mansukh Lal Jain. Any issue of delayed payment was between the principal contractor and the sub-contractor, but the learned Trial Court has erroneously awarded the decree against the appellants- State.

7. So far the delay part is concerned, it is argued by learned counsel for the appellants- State that Respondents were not appearing on several dates and consequently, hearing was adjourned .The appellants- State was vigilant for hearing on each and every date save and except on 13.01.2012 when the appeal was dismissed for default.

8. It is submitted that miscarriage of justice would be caused, if the appeal is not heard on merits. Reliance is placed on in the case of Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Limited vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and Anr., 2010 (5) SCC 459 and in the case of The Commissioner, Mysore Urban Development Authority vs. S. S. Sarvesh passed in Civil Appeal No.1463 of 2019 (arising out of S. L. P. (C) No.23718 of 2018) wherein it has been held that in dealing with application for condonation of delay filed on behalf of the State, certain amount of latitude is to be shown because the State represents collective cause of community and the decisions are taken by the officers/ agencies.

9. It is further argued that law is settled that in limitation matter, liberal view is to be taken so that lis between the parties is decided on merits and no cast away on the technicalities.

10. Learned counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 10 submits that there cannot be different yardsticks being applied so far the limitation matter is concerned as held by the Apex Court in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969 [Shivamma (dead) by Lrs. Vs. Karnataka Housing Board and Ors.] and also in 2013 (12) SCC 649 [Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and Ors].

11. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, it appears that the said Money Suit was filed 20 years after the execution of the work, by Sub-Contractor against the principal contractor impleading the State as a party.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=rC8SUFuyEFsvB5V61cXUrIwL5SgkZJDACrXyyFiBcz6KJXzcSPVYMQUd4U2p1CMj&caseno=MA/119/2018&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010080082018&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.