Zila Praisad through its secretary-cum-chief executive officer cum deputy development commissioner vs State of Bihar and Others — 8/2019
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 104. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 24th March 2026.
MISC. CIVIL APPEAL
CNR: BRJE010046122019
Filing Number
508/2019
Filing Date
25-10-2019
Registration No
8/2019
Registration Date
25-10-2019
Court
Jehanabad DJ Div
Judge
1-District and Sessions Judge
Decision Date
24th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Zila Praisad through its secretary-cum-chief executive officer cum deputy development commissioner
Adv. Sri Dilip Kumar
Respondent(s)
State of Bihar and Others
Shanti Devi
Ranjeet Kumar
Sanjay Kumar
Vinay Kumar
Sharda Devi
Sangeeta Devi
Dinita Devi
Sidhnath Prasad
Deepak Kumar
Raju Prasad
Manoj Kumar
Rajesh Kumar
Mukesh Kumar
Pankaj Kumar
Binni Devi
Laxmi sao
Kishori Prasad
Ayodhya Prasad
Shreenath Kumar
Sarban Kumar
Ranjan Kumar
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District and Sessions Judge
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 24-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 17-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 16-03-2026 | HEARING |
| 13-03-2026 | HEARING |
| 12-03-2026 | HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Principal District Judge of Jehanabad dismissed the appellate plea of Zila Parishad, holding that the appellant failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for restoring a dismissed miscellaneous case after 26 years of protracted litigation marked by gross negligence and repeated defaults. The court found the appellant's explanation (a clerk's mistake in noting the wrong date) unconvincing and held that substantial justice cannot override the appellant's pattern of deliberate non-prosecution and carelessness in pursuing the case from inception. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Principal District Judge of Jehanabad dismissed the appellate plea of Zila Parishad, holding that the appellant failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for restoring a dismissed miscellaneous case after 26 years of protracted litigation marked by gross negligence and repeated defaults. The court found the appellant's explanation (a clerk's mistake in noting the wrong date) unconvincing and held that substantial justice cannot override the appellant's pattern of deliberate non-prosecution and carelessness in pursuing the case from inception. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts