Disposed

Sanjay Kumar Sah And Ors. v. Khelu Mandal And Ors.

Jharkhand HC5 Aug 2019WPC/2990/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand disposed of a writ petition seeking quashing of orders regarding a pending impleadment application in a title suit. The Court directed the Subordinate Judge to dispose of the application expeditiously and the long-standing title suit within six months.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with a direction to dispose of the pending impleadment application and the older title suit within six months.

Sanjay Kumar Sah And Ors. Vs Khelu Mandal And Ors. — Property and Title | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 2990 of 2010

¶3

¶4

Sanjay Kumar Sah.

¶5

Baleshwar Barnwal.

¶6

Kartik Naroni. .....Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Amo Devi and others .....Respondents

¶9

¶10

Coram: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

¶11

---------For the Petitioners : Mr. Aashish Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Prashant Pallav, Advocate

¶12

¶13

12/5.8.2019 Heard the parties.

¶14

The petitioners in this writ petition have prayed for quashing the order dated 16.03.2010, passed in Title Suit No. 247 of 2002 by the learned Sub-Ordinate JudgeVII, Deoghar, by which the application preferred by the intervenor-petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. for impleading them as party in the suit has been kept pending.

¶15

The petitioners are aggrieved by that part of the order dated 16.03.2010, by which in the application preferred under Order 39 Rule 7 C.P.C., a Pleader Commissioner was appointed to inspect the premises but no order had been passed on the application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. preferred by the petitioners.

¶16

The original plaintiff-Khelu Mandal had preferred a title partition suit being Title (Partition) Suit No. 38 of 2000 before the Court of Settlement Officer, Dumka, which was subsequently transferred to the Civil Court, Deoghar where it was registered as Title Suit No. 247 of 2002. The petitioners claim that intervenors/petitioners have purchased different portion of the suit plots and on the basis of the same the application was preferred under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. for impleading them as party defendants. Vide order dated 29.1.2010, the said application was kept pending. Meanwhile on an application preferred under Order 39 Rule 7 C.P.C., a pleader Commissioner was appointed to inspect the premises vide order dated 16.3.2010.

¶17

Since the limited prayer of the petitioners is with respect to considering the application preferred under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C., this writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the learned Subordinate Judge-VII, Deoghar to dispose of the same expeditiously. It is also directed that since the said suit is of the year 2002 and is getting adjourned on one pretext or the other, learned trial court is directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously and preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶18

This writ petition stands disposed of.

¶19

Rakesh/

¶20

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)

Sanjay Kumar Sah And Ors. v. Khelu Mandal And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar Sah And Ors. v. Khelu Mandal 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

Ritesh Kumar Nishad Alias Ritesh Kr Nishad Alias Pappu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Maya Devi Vs Dilip Majhi and Ors.

Julee Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Abdul Wahab Vs Sri Besh Lal Prasad

Chinmoy Banerjee Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Shiv Charan Prasad and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.