Petitioner challenged the rejection of an application to frame a preliminary issue in a property suit. The High Court dismissed the challenge, upheld the impugned order, and directed the trial court to frame issues within nine months.
The civil revision application was dismissed and the trial court was directed to frame issues within nine months.
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
C.M.P. No. 630 of 2022
Madhup Kumar .... .. ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1 ,Anil Kumar Gupta 2 .Smt. Manju Devi 3 .Manoj Kumar 4 .Ranjit Kumar 5 .Manish Kumar 6 .Dr. Manoj Kumar Barnwal 7 .Rajesh Kumar 8 .Sandhya Devi 9 .Guljar Hussain 10 .Md. Enamaul Haque 11 .Parmeshwar Singh 12 .Narsum Nisha 13 .Asha Devi .. ... ...Opp. Party(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
......... For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate Mr. Ankur Anand, Advocate
For the Opp. Party(s) :
04/ 05.12.2022 . The instant CMP has been filed for quashing of the order dated 30.06.2022 (Annexure-6) passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) X, Ranchi, in Original Suit (Title Suit) No.360 of 2016, whereby the learned court below has rejected the petition filed by the petitioner for deciding the preliminary issue before proceeding further in the case.
Suit has been filed by the Opp. Party(s), Anil Kumar Gupta & Ors., impleading this petitioner as defendant no.4 for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit property.
The claim of the plaintiffs over the suit property is on the basis of registered sale-deed executed by Kabilash Choudhary in favour of wife of plaintiff no.1 and after the said purchase, the land has been duly mutated. The other plaintiffs also claimed the property by sale-deeds executed by the said Kabilash Choudhary. Further Kabilash Choudhary claimed the title over the suit property from the predecessor-in-interest, Dr. Sachindra Nath Ray and Smt. Samsumehar Begum who had executed the sale deed to Sahruddin Ansari, Amanutullah Ansari and Ansura Begam.
Kabilash Choudhary by different sale deeds claimed to have purchased the property from them. Petitioner/ defendant no.4 also claimed the suit property by registered sale deed from power attorney holder of Dr. Sachindra Nath Ray executed in favour of defendant no.1/ (Gulzar Hussain) who transferred the land to this petitioner.
-2-
The main plea of the petitioner is that the claim of title is based on purchased from power-of-attorney holder, which was a force and fabricated document. The plaintiff also does not disclose as to who were the executants of power-of-attorney holder. The pleadings were false and factually incorrect. It was against this background that the petition had been filed before the learned court below to frame preliminary issue and to expeditiously dispose of the suit.
The issues which the petitioner seeks to be disposed of as preliminary issue are question of facts or mixed question of a fact and law. The learned court below has assigned specific reasons while rejecting the petition to dispose of the suit on preliminary issue. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order.
Accordingly, the instant CMP stands dismissed.
However, from the submissions made, it appears that written statement was filed on 19.11.2019, but till date the issues have not been framed.
Under the circumstance, learned court below is directed to frame issues without any further delay and dispose of the suit at the earliest preferably within a period of nine months.
Sandeep/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the rejection of the application to frame a preliminary issue on title dispute is correct.
Whether the trial court is directed to frame issues and dispose of the suit within a specific timeline.
Madhup Kumar
Anil Kumar Gupta
Gautam Kumar Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
