Dismissed

Dharam Shila Singh And Ors. v. Deepak Kumar Baisakhiyar And Ors.

Jharkhand HC9 May 2019C.R./30/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A High Court bench dismissed a civil revision and a condonation of delay application. The revision sought interference against an order rejecting a prayer to dismiss a title suit on grounds of res judicata and limitation, holding the suit requires evidence appraisal.

What did the court decide?

Civil revision and application for condonation of delay dismissed in limine.

Dharam Shila Singh And Ors. Vs Deepak Kumar… — Succession and Inheritance | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.R. No.30 of 2017 With

¶2

I.A. No.6388 of 2018

¶3

Dharam Shila Singh & 4 Ors.

¶4

..... Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

Deepak Kumar Baisakhiyar & 27 Ors.

¶7

…. Opposite Parties

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.C. MISHRA

¶9

For the Petitioners : Mr. Rahul Kr. Gupta, Advocate For the Opposite Parties : None

¶10

-----

¶11

8/9.5.2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶12

This civil revision is directed against the impugned order dated 22.03.2017, passed by the learned Sub-Judge-V, Giridih, in Title Suit No.28 of 2007, whereby, the application filed by these petitioners in the Court below, for dismissal of the suit on two grounds, firstly, being barred by the principles of res judicata, and secondly for the rejection of the plaint under Or.7 R.XI of the C.P.C., being barred by limitation, was rejected by the Court below, stating that in the facts of this case, these issues could be decided only upon appraisal of the oral and documentary evidences, which were still not brought on record.

¶13

The facts of this case lie in a short compass. The plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration that he was the adopted son of his uncle Raghunandan Ram. The present petitioners are the heirs and legal representatives of the defendant No.22 in the said suit. The defendant Nos. 1 to 21 had not filed any objection thereto, but defendant No.22 filed the application for dismissal of the suit on the two aforesaid grounds, which was rejected by the Trial Court below by the impugned order dated 22.03.2017.

¶14

It is an admitted fact that there was no earlier suit between the parties for adjudication of the issue, whether the plaintiff was the adopted son of Raghunandan Ram or not, and as such, this issue had not been decided earlier by any competent Court. Accordingly, the principles of res judicata would not apply to the case.

¶15

On the second point, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suit is barred by limitation, as it was filed beyond the period of twelve years from the cause of action. The impugned order shows that the suit was filed by the plaintiff, within the period of 12 years from 8.5.2005, from when the plaintiff claimed that the defendants refused to recognise him to be the adopted son of his uncle Raghunandan Ram. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners,

¶16

-2-

¶17

the plaintiff had the knowledge of this fact from much before, and the suit ought to have been file within twelve years from the date of knowledge. The fact remains that if according to the petitioners themselves, there is a dispute on this question of fact, whether for the first time on 8.5.2005 the defendants refused to recognise the plaintiff to be the adopted son of his uncle Raghunandan Ram, or the plaintiff had the knowledge of this fact from much before, the Court below is absolutely right in holding that this issue could be decided only upon appraisal of the oral and documentary evidences, which may be brought on record.

¶18

I do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court below, worth any interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. There is no merit in this civil revision. 7. This revision has been filed after the delay of 95 days, and accordingly, I.A. No.6388 of 2018, has been filed for condonation of this delay. Since there is no merit in this revision, no useful purpose is going to be served by condoning the delay in filing this revision. Consequently the I.A. No.6388 of 2018, filed for condonation of delay, stands dismissed.

¶19

This civil revision is accordingly, dismissed in limine, being bereft of any merit, and also being barred by limitation.

¶20

(H. C. Mishra, J.)

¶21

R.Kumar

Dharam Shila Singh And Ors. v. Deepak Kumar Baisakhiyar And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharam Shila Singh And Ors. v. Deepak Kumar Baisakhiyar And Ors.

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

Miss Kavita Vs Agriculture Department

Janardhan Vishwakarma Vs Rural Dev Dept

Naresh Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pankaj Kumar Pahari Vs Sukumar Goswami and Anr.

Chand Mahto Alias Sudama Mahto Alias Sudam Mato Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ramesh Sharma Alias Amit Sharma Alias Titu Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand