Disposed

Bihari Rajput v. Krishna Dewangan

Chhattisgarh HC24 Jan 2024WP227/56/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed under Article 227 challenging the trial court's order allowing the impleadment of a proposed defendant in a property suit. The High Court declined to interfere, directed the framing of an issue to determine the necessity of the impleaded party, and ordered the trial court to complete the proceedings within a fixed timeline of one year and ten months.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; directions issued to frame issue on necessity of impleadment and limit trial completion to one year ten months.

Bihari Rajput Vs Krishna Dewangan — Property and Title | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

WP227 No. 56 of 2024

¶4

Bihari Rajput S/o Late Rewachand Aged About 50 Years R/o Kaserpara, Chakradharnagar, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh (C.G.) (Plaintiff)

¶5

---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Krishna Dewangan S/o Siddhram @ Setram Dewangan Aged About 25 Years R/o Shri Ram Fancy Store, Behind Jhulelal Temple, Sindhi Colony, Chakradhar Nagar, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh (C.G.) (Defendant)

¶8

Raju Dewangan S/o Siddhram @ Setram Dewangan Aged About 28 Years R/o Shri Ram Fancy Store, Behind Jhulelal Temple, Sindhi Colony, Chakradhar Nagar, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh (C.G.) (Defendant)

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Collector, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) (Defendant)

¶10

Bihari Udasi S/o Amardas Udasi Aged About 60 Years R/o Chakradhar Nagar, Sindhi Colony, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) (Proposed Defendant)

¶11

---- Respondents

¶12

For petitioner : Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate. For State : Mr. Ruhul Ameen Memon, P.L.

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas. Order on Board

¶14

25.01.2024

¶15

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 08.12.2023 passed by the learned 2^nd Additional Judge of 1st Civil Judge Class-I Distt. Raigarh in Civil Suit No. A/22/2023 by which the learned trial Court allowed the application filed by respondent No. 4 Bihari Udasi on 05.04.2023 under Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. to implead him as defendant No. 4 to the case by recording its finding that the name of the proposed respondent has been mentioned in the revenue records and interest of the proposed

¶16

¶17

respondent is existing, as such the learned trial has allowed the said application.

¶18

The brief facts as reflected from the record are that the plaintiff filed civil suit for declaration and possession of the suit property bearing Khasra No. 251/7 area 0.75 decimal which was purchased by the plaintiff's father on 17.08.1964 from Gopal Das S/o Retumal and Narumal S/o Gopal Das and Khasra No. 251/7 area 0.25 Decimal was purchased by the plaintiff's father on 21.09.1966 from Narumal S/o Gopal Das, Tikamchand and Godhumal both S/o Dayaram. The defendants No. 1 Krishna Dewangan and Defendant No. 2 Raju Dewangan interfered in the suit property therefore, he has filed the suit for declaration and possession of the suit property on 14.02.2023.

¶19

The proposed defendant moved an application on 05.07.2023 mainly contending that his name has been recorded in the revenue record and his impleadment is necessary for proper decision of the suit and would pray for impleading proposed respondent Bihari Udasi as defendant.

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the plaintiff has filed reply to the said application before the learned Trial Court mainly contending that no document has been annexed with the application to demonstrate that the name of the proposed defendant has been mentioned in the revenue record. It has also been contended that there is no relation with the land bearing Khasra No. 251/7, as such the application has been filed in collusion with other defendants and would pray for rejection of the same. The learned Trial Court vide impugned

¶21

¶22

order dated 08.12.2023 has allowed the application. This order is being assailed by the petitioner in this petition.

¶23

The learned Trial Court has allowed the said application whether the proposed defendant has some interest or not cannot be decided without recording of the evidence, as such I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order. Since now proposed defendant has already been impleaded as defendant No. 4 he should be directed to file written statement, if it has not been filed, it should be filed immediately and should not adopt delay tactics to linger on the trial. The learned Trial Court after having the pleadings of the party should frame issue whether the defendant No. 4 is necessary party or not and what is the effect of impleadment as a preliminary issue and the same should be decided with all issues framed by the Trial Court.

¶24

Considering the fact that the suit has been filed on 14.02.2023 and already a period of about one year has lapsed but written statement has not been filed, let learned trial Court make an endeavour to complete the trial within outer limit of 1 year and 10 months from 27.01.2024. It is directed that if the plaintiff, defendants or newly added defendant adopts delay tactics, they shall be dealt with in accordance with law.

¶25

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed off.

¶26

Sd/( Narendra Kumar Vyas) JUDGE

¶27

Deshmukh

Bihari Rajput v. Krishna Dewangan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bihari Rajput v. Krishna Dewangan

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

Dinesh Kumar Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Atish Kumar @ Babalu Mahilang Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Paro Vs Smt. Chandar

Smt. P. Paul Vs The Registrar General

Sukhan Vs Laxmaniya

Laxmi Prasad @ Bhuru Vs State of Chhattisgarh