Allowed

Afroz Khatoon v. Muslima Khatoon And Ors.

Jharkhand HC7 Jul 2022WPC/5340/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged an order of the Munsif, Giridih, refusing impleadment of a purchaser in a title suit. The High Court held that the purchaser was a necessary party as the sale deed required adjudication in the suit.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed; the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude it at the earliest without unnecessary adjournments.

Afroz Khatoon Vs Muslima Khatoon And Ors. — Property and Title | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

[Civil Writ Jurisdiction]

¶3

W.P.(C ) No. 5340 of 2016

¶4

Afroz Khatoon .... .. ... Petitioner Versus Muslima Khatoon & Ors. .. ... ... Respondents

¶5

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO

¶6

......... For the Petitioner : Mr. Arwind Kumar, Advocate For the respondent no.3 : Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Advocate For the respondent nos.1,2,4 & 5 : Md. Shahabuddin, Advocate

¶7

07/ 07.07.2022 .

¶8

Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

¶9

Petitioner- Afroz Khatoon has assailed the order dated 13.07.2016 passed by learned Munsif, Giridih in Title Suit No.09 of 2010 whereby petition filed by the petitioner under Order-1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. to implead the purchaser, Nayaz Khan as party in the suit has been refused by the impugned order.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the plaintiff filed Title Suit No.09 of 2010 against Washi Ahmad Khan, S/o Abdul Rahman Khan and Md. Ektar Khan, S/o Amil Khan. During pendency of the suit, defendant no.1- Md. Washi Ahmad Khan has died leaving behind his legal heirs, Muslima Khatoon, W/o Late Washi Ahmad Khan, Zarina Khatoon, D/o Late Washi Ahmad Khan and Gulam Amir Khan, S/o Late Washi Ahmad Khan, who have been substituted in the trial court. Md. Ektar Khan, S/o Amil Khan has sold the property to Nayaz Khan and thus, Nayaz Khan has entered into the shoe of the defendant, who is the contesting party, as such, petition filed under Order-1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. is fit to be allowed, which has been wrongly rejected by the learned trial court.

¶11

Learned counsel, Mr. Ramesh Kumar on instruction of learned counsel for the respondent no.3, Mr. Shree Nivas Roy has submitted that Nayaz Khan may be impleaded as a party.

¶12

Considering the submissions, this Court is of the opinion that Nayaz Khan is necessary party in the case as the title of the suit property has changed from original defendant to the new purchaser, as such, his presence is required in the suit because the sale deed of the purchaser is to be adjudicated in the title suit.

¶13

-2-

¶14

Accordingly, the instant writ petition is allowed.

¶15

The trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same at the earliest without giving any unnecessary adjournment to the parties. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the trial court through FAX/e-mail at once.

¶16

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)

¶17

R.S.

Afroz Khatoon v. Muslima Khatoon And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Afroz Khatoon v. Muslima Khatoon 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

Deepika Devi Vs Sanjeev Kumar Chourasiya Alias Sanjeev Kumar Chourasia

Sushant Manna Vs State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Deptt of Excise and Prohibition

Narayan Giri Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vivek Vidyalaya and Anr. Vs Employees State Insurance Corporation through Its Deputy Director and Ors.

Y Ramana Rao Vs M/S Timken India Ltd. and Anr.

Md. Nasim Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.