Jharkhand HC Dismisses Plea To Recall Rejected Petitions | Litigants Can’t Blame Courts For Delay After Repeated Negligence
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Jharkhand Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi has dismissed a civil miscellaneous petition seeking recall of multiple judicial orders that had earlier barred the petitioners from filing a written statement in a title suit. The Court held that the relief sought was barred by res judicata and found no illegality or procedural impropriety in the trial court’s rejection of the petitioners’ request. Consequently, the Court declined to interfere and dismissed the petition.
The civil miscellaneous petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 02.03.2023 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-III, Ramgarh, in Title Suit No. 99 of 2014. This order dismissed the petitioners' application dated 30.11.2022 for recalling three earlier orders: 31.08.2015, 08.04.2016, and 18.09.2017, which had collectively debarred them from filing a written statement.
The subject of the dispute is a piece of land measuring 0.48 acres in Shibu Colony under Ramgarh Cantt., recorded in Khata No. 232, Plot No. 3344. The land was purchased by the plaintiff through a registered sale deed dated 23.08.1961. Post-purchase, mutation was done, and rent receipts were issued in the plaintiff’s name.
A conflict arose when the defendants claimed to have sold 0.24 acres out of the said land to third parties. This led to proceedings under Section 144 CrPC before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in Case No. 100/06. The plaintiff subsequently filed Title Suit No. 99/2014 for declaration of right, title, interest, and possession over the property.
The petitioners entered appearance in the suit on 21.03.2015 but failed to file their written statement within the prescribed time. Consequently, on 31.08.2015, the trial court passed an order debarring the petitioners from filing the written statement in light of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
Subsequent applications dated 08.04.2016 and 10.06.2016 for acceptance of the written statement were dismissed, including an order on 18.09.2017 which cited res judicata. The petitioners stated that their lawyer’s health prevented timely filing, but the trial court found this explanation insufficient and unsupported by documentary evidence.
The petitioners then approached the High Court in W.P.(C) No. 6994 of 2017, seeking to set aside the order dated 18.09.2017. However, they withdrew the writ petition on 28.01.2019 without obtaining any liberty to file a fresh application.
Despite this, the petitioners filed a fresh application on 30.11.2022 before the trial court, seeking recall of the three earlier orders. This application was dismissed on 02.03.2023, with the court holding that it was barred by res judicata and noting the absence of any liberty granted by the High Court in the earlier writ proceedings.
The petitioners argued that Order VIII Rule 1 CPC is directory and not mandatory, relying on judicial precedents to support their plea for condonation of delay. They maintained that the situation was caused due to their counsel’s illness.
In response, the respondents contended that the petitioners had adopted a casual approach and were seeking to re-agitate matters already decided. They emphasized the absence of liberty in the withdrawn writ petition and supported the trial court’s application of res judicata.
The trial court also noted that the trial had progressed, with issues framed and one witness examined on behalf of the plaintiffs.
The High Court observed: “it is an admitted position that the petitioners/defendants appeared before the learned Court on 21.03.2015, however, not filed written statement and that situation compelled the learned Court to pass the order dated 31.08.2015 debarring the petitioners herein to file written statement.”
Discussing the withdrawal of the earlier writ petition, the Court stated: “Looking into the said order, it transpires that the liberty was not provided to the petitioners and it was a simple withdrawal on the prayer of the petitioners.”
On the latest application, the Court noted: “By one petition, three orders have been sought to be recalled and those orders have attained finality as the challenge of that has not been made and one order challenged before this Court, has been simply withdrawn by the petitioners.”
Referring to precedents, the Court cited Atcom Technologies Ltd. v. Y.A. Chunawala and Co., (2018) 6 SCC 639 and observed: "The provision of Order 8 Rule 1 providing for the upper limit of 90 days to file written statement is directory. Having said so, we wish to make it clear that the order extending time to file written statement cannot be made in routine. The time can be extended only in exceptionally hard cases. While extending time, it has to be borne in mind that the legislature has fixed the upper time-limit of 90 days. The discretion of the court to extend the time shall not be so frequently and routinely exercised so as to nullify the period fixed by Order 8 Rule 1."
From Kailash v. Nanhku, (2005) 4 SCC 480, the Court extracted: “The extension can be only by way of an exception and for reasons assigned by the defendant and also recorded in writing by the court to its satisfaction.”
The High Court recorded: “The only reason disclosed by the petitioners for not being able to file written statement by way of filing different petitions is that the Lawyer was not well, however, no supporting documents have been brought before the learned Court.”
The Court also noted: “It is well-settled that even in a pending suit if similar nature of petition is being filed, which has already been decided earlier, the principle of res judicata is attracted.”
On the standard for interference under Article 227, the Court stated: “The orders passed by the Court can be set-aside only on the limited ground of illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. What has been discussed herein above, the petitioners herein are responsible for inviting such situation and unnecessarily, the Courts are being blamed of delay disposal of the cases.”
The Court concluded that there was no illegality in the order passed by the trial court on 02.03.2023. It held that the principles of res judicata were rightly applied and found no procedural impropriety.
Accordingly, the Court stated: “In view of the aforesaid facts, reasons and analysis, the Court finds that there is no illegality in the impugned order and, as such, this petition is dismissed.”
The Court confirmed that the petitioners were not granted liberty in their previous writ petition and that the present petition was rightly rejected by the trial court on the ground of res judicata. It further noted that the only reason advanced by the petitioners was the alleged illness of their counsel, unsupported by any documentary evidence.
The Court held that orders can only be interfered with on grounds of illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety, and none were found to exist in this case. As a result, the petition stood dismissed.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Senior Advocate; Mr. Om Prakash, Advocate; Ms. Maksuda Khatun, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Samir Kumar Lall, Advocate; Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate
Case Title: Ganesh Prasad Gupta & Anr. v. Manoj Kumar Gupta & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025:JHHC:17284
Case Number: C.M.P. No. 554 of 2023
Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
