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

2019 Supreme(Jhk) 845

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.
Sumitra Devi @ Sumitra Kumari & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Chandan Munda & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 2798 of 2019
Decided On : 13-09-2019

Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Dilip Kumar Prasad, Mr. Jitesh Kumar, Advocates.

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 227 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 151 - Rule 10 - Order I - Amending Act of 1976 - Delivery of possession of suit property - Appointment of Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner - Brief facts of case as per pleadings made in writ petition is that suit has been filed by plaintiffs respondents against the defendants petitioners being Title Suit - Declaration of right title and interest of plaintiffs over the suit property after evicting the defendants from suit property and for other relief or reliefs Court deem fit and proper and further after passing of preliminary decree for appointment of Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner to give delivery of possession of suit property to plaintiffs – Held, Contesting defendant and have appeared and filed their written statement opposing prayer made in plaint - Issues have been framed and suit is pending for evidence of defendants - Defendant - And have filed petition informing to Court that plaintiff - Has died on and such plaintiffs be directed for taking proper steps accordingly Court directed plaintiffs for taking proper steps as per law but even after lapse of about nine months plaintiffs could not comply with the order hence trial Court passed the order holding therein that suit has been abated so far plaintiff - Is concerned - This Court after going through pleadings made in writ petition and findings recorded by trial Court has found that trial court after taking aid of aforesaid judgments rendered by Hon Apex Court and considering object and scope of provision of Order Rule as also to adjudicate the issue properly their presence are necessary has allowed petition filed under Order Rule CPC therefore is of view that said impugned order does not warrant any interference by this Court under its jurisdiction conferring under Article of Constitution of India - Petition dismissed

JUDGMENT :

This writ petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder order dated 30.04.2019 passed in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 147 of 2018 arising out of Title Suit No. 139 of 2007 by which petition filed under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, by which legal heirs and successor of original plaintiff nos. 2, 7 and 11 has been allowed impleading them party to the proceeding on the ground that they are necessary parties to the suit and issues involved in the suit cannot be decided without impleadng them.

2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleadings made in the writ petition, is that a suit has been filed by the plaintiffs/respondents against the defendants/petitioners being Title Suit No. 139 of 2007 for declaration of right, title and interest of the plaintiffs over the suit property after evicting the defendants from the suit property and for other relief or reliefs, the Court deem fit and proper and further after passing of preliminary decree, for appointment of Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner to give delivery of possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs. The contesting defendant nos. 1 and 2 have appeared and filed their written statement opposing the prayer made in the plaint. Issues have been framed and suit is pending for evidence of the defendants. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have filed a petition informing to the Court that plaintiff No. 2 has died on 24.10.2017 and as such plaintiffs be directed for taking proper steps, accordingly the learned Court directed the plaintiffs for taking proper steps as per law, but even after lapse of about nine months, the plaintiffs could not comply with the order, hence, the trial Court passed the order on 06.08.2018 holding therein that the suit has been abated so far plaintiff no. 2 is concerned.

3. After lapse of more than a year, petition dated 04.09.2018 under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC was filed on behalf of heirs and legal representatives of plaintiff nos. 2, 7 and 11 stating therein that they may be added as plaintiffs to the suit, to which, rejoinder was filed on behalf of defendant nos. 1 and 2 taking the stand inter alia that the present petition is not maintainable under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC mainly for the reason that the suit since has been abated so far as plaintiff no. 2 is concerned and as such the petition filed under Order I Rule 10 CPC has been allowed, against which, the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed under its revisional jurisdiction.

4. This Court, after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and after going across the pleadings made in the writ petition, has found there from that suit pertaining to declaration of right, title and interest to be declared in favour of the plaintiffs, in which, the defendants have appeared and filed their written statement and the case has reached to the stage of defendants' evidence and at that stage, the plaintiff no. 2 has died, as has been informed by defendant no. 1 and 2 to the Court, by way of filing a petition praying therein to direct the remaining plaintiffs to take appropriate steps for substitution through legal heirs and accordingly order was passed on 3.11.2017 but the aforesaid order has not been complied with, which resulted into passing of order dated 6.08.2018 by which the suit has been held to be abated so far as plaintiff no. 2 is concerned.

5. The legal heirs of plaintiff no. 2, 7 and 11 have filed a petition under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC, which was registered as Misc. Civil Appeal No. 147 of 2018 praying inter alia therein to implead them party to the proceeding since their presence in the proceeding is necessary for appropriate adjudication as also to avoid the multiplicity of proceeding.

6. The aforesaid application has been objected by filing rejoinder to the same by taking the ground therein that the surviving plaintiffs even though were ful

          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 Back to top