RAMESH CHANDRA GHOSAL vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - PRABHAT KUMAR — C.M.P./612/2022

Disposed: Uncontested--Dissmiss For Default/Non-Prosecution on 08th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: JHHC010321762022

Filing Number

C.M.P./6824/2022

Filing Date

13-Sep-2022

Registration No

C.M.P./612/2022

Registration Date

13-Sep-2022

Judge

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

CIVIL PROCEDURE & LIMITATION ( 113 )

Sub-Category

RESTORATION. ( 12 )

Judicial Branch

Civil Section

Decision Date

08-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--Dissmiss For Default/Non-Prosecution

Last updated 04-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.RAMESH CHANDRA GHOSAL

    Adv. KALYAN BANERJEE

  2. 2.HARISH CHANDRA GHOSAL

  3. 3.SRI MAYA SIBANI GHOSAL

  4. 4.RAJESH GHOSAL

  5. 5.SUBHASH GHOSAL

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - PRABHAT KUMAR

  2. 2.DISTRICT FOREST OFFICER

  3. 3.RANGER FOREST DEPARTMENT

  4. 4.THE STATE OF BIHAR PATNA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 08-May-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar ChoudharyView PDF

    The Jharkhand High Court dismissed the civil miscellaneous petition filed by five members of the Ghosal family against the State of Jharkhand and forest department officials. The dismissal was ordered for default as no representative appeared for the petitioners despite repeated calls, and the State contended the petition lacked merit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 12-Sep-2025

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar ChoudharyView PDF

  4. 13-Oct-2022

    Lawazima

    Registrar (Judicial)

  5. 13-Sep-2022

    Case filed

    Registration No. C.M.P./612/2022

casestatus.in Summary

The Jharkhand High Court dismissed the civil miscellaneous petition filed by five members of the Ghosal family against the State of Jharkhand and forest department officials. The dismissal was ordered for default as no representative appeared for the petitioners despite repeated calls, and the State contended the petition lacked merit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case