Single judge rejected a petitioner's application to further examine. The High Court held that no sufficient explanation was provided for the delay in necessity, dismissing the petition against the dated 08.01.2015 order in a succession suit.
The application for further examination was dismissed.
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
W.P.(C) No. 645 of 2015
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
--For the Petitioner : None For the Respondents : None ---
05/02.08.2019 None appears on behalf of the parties.
The defects as pointed out by the office are ignored.
The petitioner is aggrieved by that part of the order dated 08.01.2015 by which the application preferred by the petitioner for her further examination has been rejected.
The petitioner is the plaintiff who along with one Shail Bala Dasi had instituted a title suit bearing Title Suit No. 15 of 2001 for decree for declaration that the defendant no. 1 was never adopted by Gobu Gowalin wife of late Bansi Ghose and the further declaration that defendant no. 1 was never given in adoption by defendant nos. 2 and 3 to the said Gobu Gowalin.
In the suit it was prayed that the Adoption Deed No. 41 dated 25.03.1980, Book No. 4, Volume No. 1, page No. 501 of Jamtara Sub Registry Office be declared to be null and void and as a result of fraud and undue influence upon Gobu Gowalin and not binding upon the plaintiff. The defendants on being noticed had appeared and filed their written statements. Issues were framed and the witnesses of the defendants were being examined when separate applications were preferred one of the plaintiff and the other under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) of the C.P.C. by the defendant no. 1. The defendant no. 1 had prayed for taking into the evidence, the affidavits sworn by Gobu Bala Dasya on 15.09.1981.
The learned court below on being satisfied with the explanation submitted by the defendant no. 1 regarding the delay in bringing the said on record had allowed the prayer. So far as the application
-2-
referred by the plaintiff is concerned with respect to further examination the same had been rejected vide order dated 08.01.2015 with which the petitioner is aggrieved.
It appears that the suit is of the year 2001 and the evidence of the plaintiff was closed long back. The only reason which has been given in the application preferred by the plaintiff was in order to clarify certain things which was necessary for her examination. However, the learned court below had rightly considered the fact that proper explanation has not been submitted by the plaintiff for necessitating her further examination.
Since appropriate reasons have been given in the impugned order dated 08.01.2015 rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner-plaintiff for further examination, I am not inclined to entertain this application which is, hereby, dismissed.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
Umesh/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to entertain an application for further examination of the petitioner-plaintiff absent sufficient explanation for delay.
Whether adequate reasons were given in the impugned order rejecting the application for further examination.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner
Respondent
Rongon Mukhopadhyay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
