Single-judge appeal challenging the grant of a letter of administration to respondents, contesting adequacy of notice publication. Court rejected contention as frivolous based on order-sheets showing compliance with law.
The appeal was dismissed, upholding the lower court's grant of administration to respondents.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 195 of 2016
Samudra Shree Nath Shahdeo, S/o late Lal Madhusudan Nath Shahdeo, R/o Gurudham Apartment, Flat no.305, Lake Road, Purani Ranchi, PO Ranchi, PS Kotwali, District Ranchi ………..Appellant
Versus
---------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA
---------- For the Appellant : Mr. D.C. Ghosh, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Srijit Choudhary, Advocate
-----------
05/Dated:14.06.2017
This appeal has been preferred for setting aside the judgment dated 02.04.2008 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner XVII, Ranchi in L.A. Case no. 62 of 2007.
Learned counsel on behalf of the appellant is in attendance.
Learned counsel on behalf of respondents has not raised any serious objection, however, he has submitted that this appeal is not maintainable on merit itself.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the main ground for assailing the appeal is that the general citation of notice was not effected by publication and the letter of administration has been granted without such publication of general notice.
Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that from photocopy of the order-sheets of the court below with respect to the service of notice, it would be evident that L.A. Case no.62 of 2007 was transferred to the court of Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi and on the direction of the court below, the general citation of notice was taken out and the notice was pasted in a public place and on the notice board, hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that there was no publication of general citation of notice is frivolous and misplaced.
Having heard the counsels and on-going through the impugned judgment and the order-sheets (filed and kept on record), it is evident that the general citation of notice was taken out in accordance to the provisions of law. Accordingly, this court is of the considered opinion that there is no illegality or infirmity committed by the court below. The court below has discussed the material evidence and recorded its satisfaction while granting the letter of administration in favour of the respondents.
Therefore, it is held that no error has been committed by the court below, accordingly, the findings do not merit interference by this Court.
In the result, the appeal is, hereby, dismissed.
(Amitav K. Gupta, J.)
Tarun /-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the general citation of notice was properly effected by publication in L.A. Case no. 62 of 2007.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Samudra Shree Nath Shahdeo
Yashwant Nath Shahdeo
Hemant Nath Shahdeo
Amitav K. Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
