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

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
Babulal Mahto – Appellant
Versus
Harihar Maho – Respondent


Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners:Mr. P.K. Mukhopadhyay, Mr. S.K. Murtty and Mr. R.K. Verma, Advocates

JUDGMENT

Notice upon the Opposite Parties have been effected and they have not appeared and in view of that this matter was adjourned on 15.01.2025 with a view to provide one more opportunity to the Opposite parties, and today again, nobody appeared on behalf of the Opposite parties on repeated calls. In view of that, this petition is being heard in absence of the Opposite parties.

2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 09.03.2022 passed by the learned Additional Munsif-X, Giridih in Original Suit No.1423 of 2019, arising out of Partition Suit No.91 of 2017, whereby the petition filed under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 C.P.C filed by the petitioners has been rejected.

3. Mr. Mukhopadhyay, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the suit was instituted for partition. He further submits that during pendency of the suit Mangori Devi died leaving behind her husband Kalu Mahto and one son Tribhuwan Verma and two daughters namely Usha Devi and Fulmati Devi. He submits that death of the defendant no.32 was not known to the plaintiffs and in view of that, when it has come t

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