Patna High Court

Inderdeo BarhiversusRaghunath Barhi,

Decided: 26 March 2026
Disposal: ABATED
Bench: R P MISHRA

Holding

The appeal is incompetent and must be dismissed.

Summary

The appellants Inderdeo Barhi and Bishundeo Barhi, who were parties to First Appeal No.263 of 1980, died during the pendency of the appeal. Substitution and limitation petitions were filed on their behalf, but the petitions were not pressed because the counsel failed to appear, leading to their rejection on 12 May 2016. The High Court examined the effect of the deaths and the non‑appearance of counsel on the continuation of the appeal. It held that, in the absence of a valid substitution and given the procedural lapse, the appeal could no longer be pursued. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal as incompetent.

Issues considered

What is the effect of the death of an appellant on the competence of a pending appeal?
Does the non‑appearance of counsel and failure to press a substitution or limitation petition render the appeal incompetent?

Subjects

appeal competence
death of party
substitution petition
limitation petition
non‑appearance of counsel
High Court

Judgment

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                          FIRST APPEAL No.263 of 1980
     ======================================================
1.    Inderdeo Barhi Son of Late Bhukhal Barhi, Resident of Village Bagaha
      Saydo, Parganas Sipah, Police Station Manjhagarh, District Gopalganj.
2.   Bishundeo Barhi, Son of Late Bhukhal Barhi, Resident of Village Bagaha
     Saydo, Parganas Sipah, Police Station Manjhagarh, District Gopalganj.
3.   Tuker Barhi, Son of Late Sheonandan Barhi, Resident of Village Bagaha
     Saydo, Parganas Sipah, Police Station Manjhagarh, District Gopalganj.
4.   Shubh Narain Barhi, son of Late Sheonandan Barhi, Resident of Village
     Bagaha Saydo, Parganas Sipah, Police Station Manjhagarh, District
     Gopalganj.

                                                             ... ... Appellant/s
                                     Versus

1.   Raghunath Barhi, Son of Late Thag Barhi, Resident of Village Bagaha
     Saydo, Pargana Sipal, Police Station Manjhagarh, District Gopalganj.
3.   Shivprashan Barhi, Son of Late Budhu Barhi, Resident of Village Bagaha
     Saydo, Pargana Sipal, Police Station Manjhagarh, District Gopalganj.
4.   Sukani Devi, Daughter of Late Budhu Barhi, Resident of Village Bagaha
     Saydo, Pargana Sipal, Police Station Manjhagarh, District Gopalganj.
5.   Pakhli Devi, Daughter of Late Budhu Barhi, Resident of Village Bagaha
     Saydo, Pargana Sipal, Police Station Manjhagarh, District Gopalganj.
6.   Sheorajia Devi, Daughter of Late Budhu Barhi, Resident of Village Bagaha
     Saydo, Pargana Sipal, Police Station Manjhagarh, District Gopalganj.
7.   Bachhia Devi, Daughter of Late Budhu Barhi, Resident of Village Bagaha
     Saydo, Pargana Sipal, Police Station Manjhagarh, District Gopalganj.
8.   Kuwaree Devi, Daughter of Late Budhu Barhi, Resident of Village Bagaha
     Saydo, Pargana Sipal, Police Station Manjhagarh, District Gopalganj.
10. Hira Barhi, Son of Late Dipchand Barhi, Resident of Village Bagaha Saydo,
    Pargana Sipal, Police Station Manjhagarh, District Gopalganj.
11. Jawahir Barhi, (minor) S/o Late Dipchand Barhi, under the guardianship of
    his moth R-13 the natural guardian, Resident of Village Bagaha Saydo,
    Pargana Sipal, Police Station Manjhagarh, District Gopalganj.
12. Shushila Devi, Daughter of Late Dipchand Barhi, Resident of Village
    Bagaha Saydo, Pargana Sipal, Police Station Manjhagarh, District
    Gopalganj.
13. Most. Kedali Devi, Widow of Late Dipchand Barhi, Resident of Village
    Bagaha Saydo, Pargana Sipal, Police Station Manjhagarh, District
    Gopalganj.
14. Jal Mukhia Devi, Daughter of Late Bhukhal Barhi, Resident of Village
    Bagaha Saydo, Pargana Sipal, Police Station Manjhagarh, District
    Gopalganj.
           Patna High Court FA No.263 of 1980(2) dt.26-03-2026
                                                        2/2




                                                            ... ... Respondent/s
                  ======================================================
                  Appearance :
                  For the Appellant/s       :        NONE
                  For the Respondent/s      :        Mr. Abbas Haidar, Advocate
                  ======================================================
                  CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
                  MISHRA
                                        ORAL ORDER

2    26-03-2026              From perusal of the office notes, it appears that appellant

                     Nos.1 and 2 had died for which substitution and limitation

                     petition respectively was filed, but due to non-appearance of

                     learned counsel, both the petitions were rejected as not pressed

                     vide order dated 12.05.2016.

                             2.      In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is held

                     that the appeal as a whole has become incompetent and cannot

                     proceed any further.

                             3.      Accordingly, the appeal as a whole stands

                     dismissed, as having become incompetent.



                                                                 (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Raj Kishore/-
U

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…