High Court at Ranchi dismissed a civil miscellaneous petition challenging the rejection of an application under Order XX Rule 18(2) CPC by the trial court to consider a sale deed for allocation of shares in a partition suit.
The civil miscellaneous petition challenging the rejection of the application under Order XX Rule 18(2) CPC stands 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 C.M.P. No. 767 of 2022
Ramesh Ahir .... .. ... Petitioner(s)
Versus 1.Charan Ahir 2.Dulari Devi 3.Manjit Ahir 4.Jhano Devi 5.Asha Devi 6.Budan Devi 7.Putul Devi 8.Tilo Devi .. ... ...Opp. Party(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Party(s) :
03/ 02.12.2022 . Defect No.3, as pointed out by the office is hereby ignored for the
present.
It is submitted that the Defect Nos.1 and 2, as pointed out by the office have already been removed.
The instant CMP is directed against the order dated 25.04.2022 passed by learned Civil Judge (SD), Gumla in Misc. Civil Application No.29 of 2018 whereby an application filed under Order XX Rule 18(2) CPC for considering the sale deed No.1195/1944 at the time of preparation of the final decree and to issue direction upon the Pleader Commissioner to allocate the share accordingly in favour of the petitioner, has been rejected.
It is submitted that the petitioner is the heir and descendants of Ramdhan Ahir who was the defendant in Partition Suit No.12 of 2010. Said Ramdhan Ahir appeared in the said Suit, but did not file any written statement and contested the suit. Accordingly, the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff(s).
It is further submitted that the suit was not properly contested before the learned trial court as the written statement was not filed. Therefore, the land acquired by the original defendant(s) vide Sale Deed No.1195/1944 executed by the widow of Natu Ahir has not been considered.
On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned court below has considered the plea of the petitioner and passed a reasoned order which does not warrant any interference by this Court.
I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and the instant CMP stands dismissed.
( Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J. )
Sandeep/
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court ought to interfere with the rejection of an application under Order XX Rule 18(2) CPC for considering a sale deed at the time of preparing the final decree.
Whether the impugned order of the trial court rejecting the prayer to allocate share in favour of the petitioner warrants interference.
Whether there is any infirmity in the lower court's reasoned order dismissing the Plaintiffs' CMP.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ramesh Ahir
Charan Ahir
Dulari Devi
Manjit Ahir
Jhano Devi
Asha Devi
Gautam Kumar Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
