Dismissed

Mansay v. Sundari

Chhattisgarh HC16 Nov 2016WP227/694/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a belated counter claim application. The Court found no jurisdictional error as the Trial Court had not committed a mistake, noting the delay was excessive. Thus, the writ petition was dismissed without questioning the trial court's decision on merits.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed at the admission stage itself.

Mansay Vs Sundari — Property and Title | Chhattisgarh HC (2016)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶2

WP (227) No. 694 of 2016

¶3

Mansay, S/o. Late Shri Bhikham Aged About 65 Years.

¶4

Dileshwar, S/o. Shri Mansay, Aged About 35 Years.

¶5

(i) Smt. Shanti, W/o. Late Shri Panmeshwar, Aged About 45 Years, Daughter in law of Harihar.

¶6

(ii) Pushpa, D/o. Late Shri Panmeshwar, Aged About 22 Years.

¶7

(iii) Rangmaniya, D/o. Late Shri Panmeshwar, Aged About 20 Years.

¶8

(iv) Bhuneshwari, D/o. Late Shri Panmeshwar, Aged About 20 Years.

¶9

(v) Hemsay, S/o. Late Shri Panmeshwar, Aged About 15 Years.

¶10

(vi) Khelkunwar, D/o. Late Shri Panmeshwar, Aged About 15 Years.

¶11

Petitioner No.3(v) & 3(v)) are minor through natural Guardian Mother Smt. Shanti, All are by Caste- Rajwar, R/o. VillageBhandarpara Latori, Thana-Jaynagar, Tahsil- Surajpur, Civil & Revenue District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

---- Petitioners

¶13

Versus

¶14

Sundari, D/o. Besahu, W/o. Shri Bhaiyaram, Aged About 45 Years, Caste Rajwar, R/o. Village Latori, Thana- Jaynagar, Tahsil-Surajpur, Civil & Revenue District - Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

¶15

State Of Chhattisgarh, Through the Collector, Sarguja now Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

¶16

---- Respondents

¶17

For Petitioners : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate

¶18

For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Anupam Dubey, Dy. Govt. Advocate

¶19

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri

¶20

Order On Board

¶21

16.11.2016

¶22

The petition is against the rejection of application under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. wherein counter claim has been made by the defendants/ petitioners.

¶23

Perusal of the documents would show that the suit was filed by the respondent/ plaintiff in the year 2008 for declaration and injunction

¶24

wherein the written statement was filed by the petitioners on 10.11.2008. Subsequently, an application has been filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. on 14.12.2015 wherein counter claim has been made. It is stated that the cause of action arose on 27.07.2011 when the application for mutation of name of the defendants were rejected by the Naib Tahsildar and the counter claim has been preferred on 14.10.2015. Apparently, no plausible reasons have been assigned as to why the counter claim is so belated almost for more than seven years. The suit is pending from 2008 and as appears still it is pending.

¶25

In view of this, taking into the circumstances and after going through the order, I do not find any jurisdictional error to have committed by the learned trial Court. Thus, this Court, in exercise of its power under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, is not inclined to interfere with the order, which is legal, just and proper.

¶26

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed at the admission stage itself.

¶27

Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) Judge

¶28

Ashok

Mansay v. Sundari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mansay v. Sundari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Anarkali Paikara and Ors. Vs Dohai Lal and Ors.

Dr.E.C.Shekhar Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Triloki Nath Singh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Dr. Ramesh Kumar Pandey Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Nakul Yadav Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Mahip Singh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh