N.N.TIWARI, J. - (1.) IN this CMP. the petitioners have prayed for restoration of FA No. 163 of 1969, which was dismissed for default on 3rd January, 1985.
(2.) IT has been stated that the said first appeal was filed in the Patna High Court. Patna and was admitted. Notices were issued. Respondents had appeared. Requisites were also deposited and the appeal was to be heard finally. In the meanwhile, the appellant No. 2, Haripada Mahato, who was looking after the case on behalf of the appellants, fell seriously ill and ultimately died. Other appellants were not in the know of the progress of the appeal. In the meanwhile, Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court was constituted and all the cases arising out of the territorial jurisdiction of Ranchi Bench were normally transferred to Ranchi Bench. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the remaining appellants were in the hope that their case, which arises out of the land situated within Singhbhum District, shall be transferred to Ranchi Bench and they will get fresh notice, but even after a long wait, when they did not get any notice, they enquire about the case and traced out that their appeal was dismissed as far back as in the year 1985. The petitioners then approached their counsel and filed this CMP with interlocutory application (IA No. 2093 of 2004) praying for condonation of delay. It has been stated in the interlocutory application that there was no wilful fault or laches on the part of the petitioners and that they were prevented from pursuing their appeal under the circumstance beyond their control. The appellant No. 2 in the said appeal was in the charge of the litigation and the petitioners were crippled because of his long illness, which led to his death. The appellants were also in the hope that like other cases, their appeal will be also transferred to Ranchi Bench and they will be noticed on receipt of the record by the Ranchi Bench, but even after long wait, the petitioner could not get any information or knowledge about their appeal.
(3.) THE petitioners traced out the case, but after a long lapse of time of several years. But, there was no intentional laches on the part of the petitioners.;