Dismissed

Raju Tirkey v. Debu Oraon Alias Etwa Oraon

Jharkhand HC7 Jan 2022C.M.P./167/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an C.M.P. challenging an order allowing the impleadment of a party under Order I Rule 10 CPC in a partition suit. The Court held that the Trial Court was not required to examine the genealogical table in detail at this stage as prima facie materials supported impleadment. Trial is reserved for fact substantiation.

What did the court decide?

The present C.M.P. No. 167 of 2021 is dismissed.

Raju Tirkey Vs Debu Oraon Alias Etwa Oraon — Partition | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

C.M.P. No. 167 of 2021

¶3

Raju Tirkey

¶4

Bitnu Tirkey @ Dabbu Tirkey

¶5

Nandu Tirkey

¶6

Ravi Tirkey ….. Petitioners Versus

¶7

Debu Oraon @ Etwa Oraon

¶8

The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi

¶9

Kishun Tirkey ….. Respondents ----- CORAM

¶10

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶11

----For the Petitioners: Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh For the Respondents:

¶12

¶13

04/07.01.2022 The case is taken up through Video Conferencing.

¶14

The present C.M.P has been filed for setting aside the order dated 01.10.2019 passed by the Sub-Judge-VII, Ranchi in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 402/2019 arising out of Original (Partition) Suit No. 431/2016 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) whereby an application dated 22.05.2019 filed by the respondent No.3 under Order I Rule 10 CPC seeking his impleadment as one of the defendants in the said suit has been allowed.

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the contents of the present C.M.P including the impugned order dated 01.10.2019 passed by the learned Court below. The respondent No.3 filed an application dated 22.05.2019 under Order I Rule 10 CPC for impleading him as one of the defendants in the said suit. The said application was duly replied by the plaintiff (the respondent No.1) and the defendants-petitioners. Learned Court below vide the impugned order dated 01.10.2019, while allowing the said application filed by the respondent No.3, has held that as per the admitted facts transpiring from the records, Bandhna Oraon had three sons, namely, Somra Oraon, Sukra Oraon and Sohrai Oraon. According to the plaintiff and the defendants of the suit, Somra Oraon and Sohrai Oraon died unmarried and their shares of the property devolved upon the surviving brother, namely, Sukra Oraon, who died leaving behind his two sons i.e. Diwa Oraon and Debu Oraon. Diwa Oraon also died

¶16

leaving behind his four sons i.e. the petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 and Gandu Tirkey (the deceased father of the petitioner No.4). However, as per the genealogical table filed by the respondent No.3-intervener along with the application under Order I Rule 10 CPC, Somra Oraon had one son, namely, Karma Oraon @ Kado Oraon. Karma Oraon @ Kado Oraon had one son, namely, Bishwanath Tirkey i.e. the father of the respondent No.3. It thus prima-facie appeared to the learned Trial Court that the respondent No.3-intervener was the descendant of Bandhna Oraon. Hence, he was allowed to be impleaded as one of the defendants in the said suit. I see no infirmity in the said order passed by the learned Trial Court as the genealogical table brought on record by the respondent No.3-intervener along with his application filed under Order I Rule 10 CPC was not required to be examined in great detail while considering the said application. The said stage will come during the trial of the suit where all the parties will get ample opportunity to substantiate their respective claims. At the stage of consideration of an application filed under Order I Rule 10 CPC, the Trial Court was required to prima-facie see as to whether on the basis of the materials available before the said Court, the applicant was able to make out a case for impleading him as a party defendant in the said suit.

¶17

In view of the aforesaid discussions, the present C.M.P is dismissed.

¶18

(RAJESH SHANKAR, J)

¶19

Satish/-

Raju Tirkey v. Debu Oraon Alias Etwa Oraon

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju Tirkey v. Debu Oraon Alias Etwa Oraon

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

Anil Kumar Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Anil Kumar Vs Nagar Panchayat Khunti through Its Executive Officer

Niraj Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vijay Kumar Gupta Vs Dr Anil Kumar Gupta

Shevas Enterprises Limited through Its Director Namely Birendra Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nand Kishor Gonjhu Alias Nand Kishore Ganjhu Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India through Chairman