Jharkhand HC Dismisses Second Appeal Where Defendants Ignored Summons and Contested a Different Plot Number
The Jharkhand High Court refused to admit a second appeal challenging an ex-parte decree, finding proper notice was served and the appellants' sale deed referenced a different plot entirely.
The High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi has dismissed Second Appeal No. 136 of 2026, declining to admit a challenge to concurrent findings of two civil courts that had decreed a land suit in favour of plaintiff Md. Salim Khan. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, sitting singly, found that neither of the two proposed law points — improper service of notice and a disputed plot number — disclosed any perversity or substantial question of law warranting interference under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code. The order was passed on 11 June 2026.
The Dispute Before the High Court
The litigation traces back to Original Suit No. 576 of 2023, originally registered as Original Suit (T.S.) No. 42 of 2018, filed by Md. Salim Khan before the Civil Judge (Senior Division)-XIV, Ranchi. Salim Khan claimed title and possession over 10 decimals of land under Plot No. 64, Khata No. 56, Mauza Datma, Police Station Sikidiri, District Ranchi.
His case rested on a chain of title going back to Sale Deed No. 5607 dated 14 November 1945, by which Khatiyani Raiyat Bahoran Mahto sold 15.60 acres at Mauza Datma to Sheikh Ramjan (the plaintiff's grandfather) along with Sheikh Panchu, Sheikh Lachhu, Sheikh Ardali, and Md. Ali. After a family partition, Sheikh Ramjan received 5.20 acres as his share. The 10-decimal suit land in Plot No. 64 formed part of that share and, the plaintiff contended, passed through his father Sheikh Jamaludin to him and his brothers.
The plaintiff alleged that the defendants — Ram Kishun Mahto and his wife Panchmi Devi, residents of Village Datma — forcibly constructed two to three rooms over the suit land, claiming it had been allotted to Panchmi Devi under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana vide Letter No. 1508(II) dated 14 November 2017 by the B.D.O., Ormanjhi. A petition under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the plaintiff before the S.D.M., Sadar, Ranchi was dropped. The plaintiff then sought a declaration that the 1945 sale deed was genuine, confirmation of possession, and delivery of possession if found dispossessed.
The trial court proceeded ex-parte against the defendants by order dated 5 January 2019, after recording that notice had been duly served. It decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff by judgment dated 24 July 2023, with the decree signed on 4 August 2023. The defendants preferred Civil Appeal No. 70 of 2024, which the Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVII, Ranchi dismissed by judgment dated 23 March 2026 (decree signed 4 April 2026), affirming the trial court. The defendants then filed the present second appeal.
Two Proposed Law Points
Counsel for the appellants, Mr. Ayush Aditya, pressed two grounds as substantial questions of law. First, that the trial court had proceeded ex-parte without proper service of notice, and that this illegality was wrongly affirmed by the first appellate court. Second, that the dispute over 10 decimals of land under Plot No. 64, Khata No. 56 had been wrongly decided by both courts and required the High Court to frame and answer a substantial law point.
The respondent, Md. Salim Khan, was represented by Mr. Avishek Prasad. The State respondents — the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, and the Chief Secretary, State of Jharkhand — were represented by Mr. O.P. Tiwari, G.P. II, and Mr. Mukul Kr. Singh.
Service of Notice: What the First Appellate Court Found
The first appellate court had framed three points for determination. The first concerned whether notice had been properly served on the defendants to the satisfaction of the trial court.
The appellate court traced the procedural history in detail. The suit was admitted on 4 April 2018 and notices were issued to both defendants on 9 April 2018. The service report was placed on record on 3 May 2018. The order sheet dated 14 May 2018 showed that service on defendant No. 1, Ram Kishun Mahto, and on the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, was found proper. Ram Kishun Mahto had personally received the summons on 18 April 2018. As for defendant No. 2, Panchmi Devi, the order dated 5 January 2019 recorded that the contents of the notice were read over to her — she being the wife of Ram Kishun Mahto and residing in the same house — and after understanding the same, she caused the notice to be received by her husband.
On these facts, the first appellate court concluded that both defendants were fully aware of the institution of the suit. It held that no suit can indefinitely remain pending for the appearance of defendants who have been served with proper notice or made conversant about the institution of the suit. The appellants' claim that they came to know of the suit only upon receiving notice in Execution Case No. 115 of 2003 was rejected as untrue.
Justice Dwivedi agreed with this analysis. The court applied the test under Order IX Rule 13 CPC — whether the defendant honestly and sincerely intended to remain present when the suit was called for hearing and did his best to do so. Relying on the Supreme Court's exposition in Parimal v. Veena Alias Bharti, reported in (2011) 3 SCC 545, the court reiterated that “sufficient cause” means the party had not acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part. The court also noted that the second proviso to Order IX Rule 13 CPC is mandatory in nature and that an ex-parte decree cannot be set aside on mere irregularity in service where the defendant had notice and sufficient time to appear.
Finding no perversity in the concurrent conclusion on notice, the High Court declined to accept the first proposed law point.
The Plot Number Mismatch
The second proposed law point concerned the identity of the suit land. The appellants' case was that their father, Nanku Mahto, had purchased 20 decimals of land under Khewat No. 5, Khata No. 56, Plot No. 94 from Sheikh Ardali and Md. Ali by Registered Sale Deed No. 13416 dated 16 December 1971 — executed in the presence of Md. Jamaludin, who was, in fact, the father of the plaintiff Salim Khan. They contended that Nanku Mahto's name was mutated before the Circle Officer, Ormanjhi, and rent was regularly paid in his name. After Nanku Mahto's death, the appellants came into possession, and in 2017 the B.D.O., Ormanjhi allotted the land and the house built upon it to Panchmi Devi under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana.
The first appellate court examined this contention in paragraph 11 of its judgment. It found that the suit and the decree concerned 10 decimals of land under Plot No. 64, Khata No. 56. The appellants' claim, by contrast, related to 20 decimals of land under Plot No. 94, Khata No. 56. The measurements and plot numbers were different.
The appellate court examined the documentary evidence. The 10-decimal suit land under Plot No. 64 was mentioned both in the Survey Khatiyan and in the 1945 sale deed in favour of Sheikh Ramjan and others. Even the copy of the Khatiyan filed by the appellants themselves showed 10 decimals in respect of Plot No. 64. The copy of the 1971 sale deed filed by the appellants bore mention of land under Plot No. 94, not Plot No. 64. Five plaintiff witnesses, PW 1 to PW 5, had all described the suit land as Plot No. 64 and supported the plaintiff's case.
When the first appellate court queried why no steps had been taken to correct the plot number in the 1971 sale deed, counsel for the appellants could not answer. The appellate court also noted that the appellants had not led any additional evidence before it to establish their case or exhibit the documents they proposed to rely upon, even though an appeal is a continuance of the trial and such an opportunity was available.
Justice Dwivedi found that the first appellate court had given judicious consideration to this issue. The High Court held that the question was a mixed question of facts and law and that there was no illegality in the impugned judgment. The second proposed law point was accordingly rejected.
Scope of Section 100 CPC
The court reiterated the settled position that a High Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC is not required to re-appreciate evidence. Where two fact-finding courts have returned concurrent findings and no perversity has been demonstrated, the High Court does not interfere. Counsel for the appellants had not shown any perversity during the course of argument. The court found that all issues raised for admission of the second appeal had been rightly appreciated and answered by the first appellate court.
Order
Second Appeal No. 136 of 2026 was dismissed. Any pending petition in the matter was also disposed of as a consequence. The order was passed on 11 June 2026.