SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(Pat) 2110

MUNGESHWAR SAHOO
Sukhdeo Paswan – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar through Collector, Vaishali, Hajipur – Respondent


Order

I have heard the learned counsel, Mr. Mahesh Narayan Parvat on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Surendra, Kishore Thakur on behalf of the respondent Nos. 7 to 10 and Mr. Md. S. Siddique, A.C. to A.A.G.-IX on behalf of the original defendant-respondent.

2. The plaintiff-petitioner filed the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 26.5.2011 as contained in Annexure-3 passed by Civil Judge-1st (Sr. Division), Hajipur in Title Suit No. 263 of 2003 whereby the learned Court below allowed the application filed by the interveners-respondents 3rd set under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code and impleaded them as defendants in the suit.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the plaintiff cannot force to fight litigation against a person against whom he has not claimed any relief. The interveners-respondent are neither necessary party nor proper party in the present suit but the learned Court below has allowed their application and, thereby exercised the jurisdiction arbitrarily. According to the learned counsel, the said respondents are not claiming title or interest in the suit property rather they are cl











Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top