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

2025 Supreme(Jhk) 655

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Punit Gope, s/o Late Churaman Gope and Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Most Chundari @ Most. Goura, d/o late Hupali Gope & w/o late Kamal Gope and Ors. – Respondents
C.M.P. No. 603 of 2024
Decided On : 11-03-2025


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Pratyush Kumar, Advocate.
For the Opp. Parties :Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, Advocate.

The necessity of including all necessary parties in a partition suit is essential, and issues can be addressed appropriately following a Pleader Commissioner Report.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Partition Suit - Objection to the preparation of final decree on grounds of necessary parties not being included - The court allowed the petition for consideration upon submission of Pleader Commissioner Report - The necessity of including purchasers as parties was emphasized but deferred pending the report for full evaluation. (Paras 2-6)

(B) Judicial Discretion - The court in exercising its discretion must ensure that all relevant parties whose interests are affected are included to prevent future disputes and uphold fair trial standards. (Para 3)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners challenged the order allowing objections against final decree preparation due to the non-inclusion of land purchasers, arguing their necessity as parties based on precedence.

Findings of Court:
The learned court safeguarded the rights of the petitioners by suggesting that a decision would follow the Pleader Commissioner Report’s submission.

Issues: Whether the purchasers of the suit property are necessary parties in the partition suit and if their absence warrants objection to the decree.

Ratio Decidendi: The court noted that while the necessity of including purchasers as parties is crucial, the matter would be more appropriately addressed following the Pleader Commissioner's report.

Result: Petition disposed of with liberty to contend post-report submission.

Table of Content
1. jurisdiction under article 227 for review of order. (Para 1 , 2)
2. necessity of parties in partition suit. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. court's analysis on pending pleader commissioner report. (Para 6)
4. disposal of petition with future liberty for contention. (Para 7)

JUDGMENT :

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

Heard Mr. Pratyush Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. Nos. 1 to 5, who are the contesting opposite parties.

2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, wherein prayer has been made for setting aside the order dated 14.06.2024, passed in Partition Suit No. 11 of 1989 by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)-I, Hazaribag, whereby, the learned court has been pleased to allow the petition which has been filed for objecting the preparation of the final decree on the ground that the purchasers of the part of the land of the suit property were not made the parties in the suit.

3. Mr. Pratyush Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/defendants submits that the suit property was sold to certain persons, but those persons have not been made party, in view of that the objection has been made and the learned court has been pleased to dispose of the prayer saying that after the Pleader Commissioner Report, that can be considered. He relied in the case of Dhanalakshmi & Ors. Versus P. Mohan & Ors., reported in (2007) 10 SCC 719.

4. Relying on the above judgment, he submits that the purchasers are the necessary parties and the learned court has wrongly passed the said order.

5. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. Nos. 1 to 5 submits that the learned court has protected the right of the petitioners and rightly said that upon the Pleader Commissioner Report, the same will be considered.

6. In view of the above, the court finds that the learned court has disposed of the petition of the petitioners/defendants saying that once the Pleader Commissioner Report will be there, the contention raised by the petitioners/defendants can be decided. In view of that the learned court has protected the right of the petitioners/defendants and further it has been pointed out the Pleader Commissioner Report has not been submitted as yet.

7. As such, this petition is disposed of with the liberty to the petitioners/defendants that after submission of the Pleader Commissioner Report, they may contend the same before the learned court.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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