Dismissed¶21

Sri Nandlal Sahu v. Hiralal Sahu

Jharkhand HC3 Nov 2025C.M.P./540/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand High Court, C.M.P. No. 540 of 2025, decided 03.11.2025 by Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary. Art. 227 petition against dismissal of impleadment application under Order I Rule 10 r/w Section 151 CPC in partition suit O.S. No.478 of 2019. Key terms: non-joinder of necessary party, impleadment of legal heirs, written statement, Order VI Rule 17 CPC amendment, inherent power Section 151 CPC, de novo trial, delay of final arguments, litigation delay tactics, cost Rs.10,000. Petition dismissed with cost; no precedent cases cited.

What did the court decide?

No plea of non-joinder of necessary party was taken in the written statement; the plea was raised for the first time through the impleadment petition. ¶16

Sri Nandlal Sahu Vs Hiralal Sahu — Writ and Judicial Review | Jharkhand HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 27.02.2025 passed in O.S. No.478 of 2019, dismissing the petitioner's application under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the CPC to implead legal heirs and include other joint property, ought to be set aside. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

No plea of non-joinder of necessary party was taken in the written statement; the plea was raised for the first time through the impleadment petition.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

The impleadment plea was taken 14 years after filing of the written statement; the proposed third party never at any stage moved the trial Court for impleadment, and the petition was pressed into service for the first time when the case was at the stage of final argument.

¶18

Key takeaways

The inherent power of a Court cannot be used when there is a specific statutory provision; amendment of the written statement to incorporate additional joint family property required a petition under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, not recourse to Section 151 of the CPC.ratio¶19
The petition is designed to delay and scuttle the suit, which is at its final stage of argument; impleadment and amendment would have the consequent effect of a de novo trial.ratio¶20
No infirmity was found in the impugned order dismissing the impleadment petition; the civil miscellaneous petition was therefore liable to be dismissed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the trial court's order dated 27.02.2025 in O.S. No.478 of 2019 (erstwhile Partition Suit No.153 of 2009), whereby the petitioner-defendant's application under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the CPC to implead the legal heirs of his father and include other joint family property in the plaint schedule was dismissed. Held: (i) no plea of non-joinder or mis-joinder of necessary party was ever taken in the written statement filed on 08.04.2011, the plea being raised 14 years later; (ii) the proposed third party never itself moved for impleadment, and the petition was pressed only when the suit was at the stage of final argument; (iii) inherent power under Section 151 CPC cannot be invoked where a specific statutory provision exists — amendment of the written statement required a petition under Order VI Rule 17 CPC; (iv) the petition was designed to delay and scuttle the suit, and impleadment/amendment would result in a de novo trial. No infirmity found in the impugned order; petition dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- payable to the plaintiff in the trial court.

¶1

2025:JHHC:32912

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 540 of 2025

¶3

------

¶4

Sri Nandal Sahu, son of Late Sita Ram Sahu, resident of 401, Nandlal Tower, Tharpakhna, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Lower Bazar, District Ranchi

¶5

.... .... …. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Hiralal Sahu, son of Late Sita Ram Sahu, resident of Church Road, 2^nd Street, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Lower Bazar, District Ranchi

¶8

.... .... .... Opposite Party

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶10

For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Bhaiya Vishwajeet Kumar, Advocate

¶11

Order No.04 / Dated : 03.11.2025

¶12

Petitioner is the defendant and the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed for setting aside the order dated 27.02.2025 passed in O.S. No.478 of 2019, whereby and whereunder a petition under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the CPC, has been dismissed.

¶13

Opposite party filed Partition Suit No.153 of 2009 presently numbered as O.S. No.478 of 2019 in which the present petitioner appeared and filed written statement on 08.04.2011.

¶14

On 28.01.2025, petitioner filed a petition to implead legal heirs of his father Late Sita Ram Sahu and for inclusion of other joint property left by his father. This petition has been rejected by the detailed and speaking order inter alia on the ground that he had nowhere taken plea of non-joinder or miss-joinder of the necessary party in his written statement. Further, after defendant’s evidence was closed and the record was running for argument, he had filed a petition on 18.11.2024 to complete his evidence by next two dates.

¶15

It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of petitioner that the proposed legal heirs are necessary party and the entire joint family property has not been included in the schedule of plaint.

¶16

After hearing the counsel on behalf of petitioner, it is apparent that no plea of non-joinder of necessary party was taken in the written statement. This plea has been taken 14 years after filing of the WS by filing a petition under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC, seeking impleadment of a third

¶17

2025:JHHC:32912

¶18

party. The said third party, at no stage moved the trial Court for being impleaded in the suit. When the case was at the stage of final argument, instant petition has been pressed into service for impleadment of other parties first time.

¶19

Petitioner further goes a step forward and seeks an amendment to incorporate certain property in the Schedule of the joint family without filing a petition for amendment of the written statement under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC by taking recourse to Section 151 of the CPC. The law is settled that inherent power of a Court cannot be used when there is a specific statutory provision.

¶20

Petition on the face of it, is designed to delay and scuttle the suit which is at its final stage of argument. Impleadment and amendment will have a consequent effect of de novo trial. This is a classic example in which the litigants adopt methods to deliberately delay the adjudicatory process. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order.

¶21

Civil Miscellaneous Petition stands dismissed with cost. Cost assessed to Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) to be payable to the Plaintiff in the trial Court. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of.

¶22

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶23

Anit

¶24

Uploaded 06.11.2025

Sri Nandlal Sahu v. Hiralal Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Nandlal Sahu v. Hiralal Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

MD Asfaque Alias Asfaque Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Smt. Bhagabati Choudhary Vs Dabasish Choudhary

Sita Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rajendra Singh Vs Usha Rakheja

Braj Mohan Singh Vs Suman Singh

The State of Jharkhand, through Secretary Water Resources Department Vs M/S R.M. Sinha and Company, Represented Thro Its Duly Nominated and Authorized Person Sri R. Sarkar