Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J
Tara Devi, Wife Of Vijay Upadhyay – Appellant
Versus
Draupadi Dev – Respondent
ORDER :
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
By order dated 03.05.2024 notices were directed to be issued upon the opposite parties.
2. O.P. Nos. 1 to 4 and O.P. Nos. 20 and 21 have appeared through their counsels by filing vakalatnama. Notice upon O.P. Nos. 5 to 14 have been validly served. O.P. No.15 has left for his heavenly abode. Notice upon O.P. Nos. 16 to 19 have not been effected as yet and it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the O.P. Nos. 1 to 4 that so far other opposite parties are concerned, they are subsequent purchasers and O.P. Nos. 1 to 4 are contesting parties and decree was in their favour and objection has been filed by Tara Devi-petitioner. As such this petition is being heard.
3. Heard Mr. H. K. Shikarwar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Amar Kr. Sinha, learned counsel for the O.P Nos. 1 to 4 and Ms. Rakhi Kumari and Akanksha Basundhra Raje learned counsel for the O.P. Nos. 20 and 21.
4. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 25.02.2022 passed in miscellaneous civil appeal no. 01 of 2022 by learned District Judge, Chatra and also for quashing of the order dated 21.12.2021 passed by learned Su
A party not included in the original suit cannot claim rights in execution proceedings; courts must ensure all necessary parties are present to avoid frivolous claims.
Execution cases are maintainable when a valid decree exists, and challenges to such cases must disclose cogent reasons for maintainability.
Frivolous petitions should not delay the execution of decrees, and the absence of a stay from higher courts validates execution orders.
The court upheld the validity of prior property rights and found no illegality in the lower court's order concerning the exclusion of the petitioner's share in the final decree proceedings.
Sub-tenants cannot challenge the execution of an eviction decree against the original tenant as they are not necessary parties to the suit.
Amendments to pleadings after trial commencement are not allowed unless due diligence is shown; allowing the amendment here would prejudice the plaintiff's case.
Procedural justice necessitates that minor clerical errors should not prevent parties from presenting relevant evidence, affirming the significance of intent over technicality.
The court emphasized that execution proceedings should not advance while a related miscellaneous case remains unresolved, ensuring orderly legal processes.
The amendment of a plaint under Order VI Rule 17 is not permissible if it alters the fundamental nature of the suit.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
