Disposed¶11

Khedan Mahato And Ors. v. State of Bihar Now Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC7 Jan 2025FA/131/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

stay of execution proceeding; Order 41 Rule 5 CPC; Order 21 Rule 5(2) CPC application pending before Executing Court; Execution Case No. 6/2009; L.A. Judge Dhanbad; impleadment of beneficiary of acquired land; Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC; Bharat Coking Coalfields Limited BCCL added as respondent No. 7; first appeal F.A. No. 131 of 2007; interlocutory applications disposed; undertaking not to insist on disbursement.

What did the court decide?

I.A. No. 2653 of 2011 disposed of - the Executing Court directed to decide the pending Order 21 Rule 5(2) CPC stay application within one month; counsel for respondent Nos. 5 and 6 undertook not to insist on disbursement until that application is decided. I.A. No. 560 of 2008 disposed of (allowed) - M/s BCCL, Dhanbad added as party respondent No. 7 with amendment of the cause title.

Khedan Mahato And Ors. Vs State of Bihar Now Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether the further proceedings of Execution Case No. 6/2009 pending before the L.A. Judge, Dhanbad should be stayed during the pendency of F.A. No. 131 of 2007 (I.A. No. 2653 of 2011 under Order 41 Rule 5 CPC). +1 more

¶7

Court's answer

Rather than granting the stay sought under Order 41 Rule 5 CPC, the Court directed the court below (Executing Court) to deal with and decide the applicants' pending application under Order 21 Rule 5(2) CPC in accordance with law, on its merits, after hearing counsel for both sides, within one month of receipt/production of a copy of the order.

¶8

Ratio / Principle

M/s BCCL, Dhanbad was impleaded as party respondent No. 7 in the first appeal under Order 1 Rule 10 r/w Section 151 CPC, with the cause title of the appeal to be amended accordingly and a copy of the memo of appeal to be supplied to BCCL's counsel.

¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi (P.P. Bhatt, J.), Order No. 12 dated 03.09.2012 in F.A. No. 131 of 2007, Khedan Mahato and Ors. v. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) and Ors. - Interlocutory orders: (1) I.A. No. 2653 of 2011 (under Order 41 Rule 5 CPC) seeking stay of Execution Case No. 6/2009 before the L.A. Judge, Dhanbad was disposed of by directing the Executing Court to decide, within one month, the applicants' still-pending stay application under Order 21 Rule 5(2) CPC (Annexure-3); counsel for respondent Nos. 5 and 6 gave an undertaking not to insist on disbursement until that application is decided. (2) I.A. No. 560 of 2008 was allowed: M/s Bharat Coking Coalfields Limited (BCCL), Dhanbad, for whose benefit the land was acquired, was impleaded as party respondent No. 7 under Order 1 Rule 10 r/w Section 151 CPC, with consequential amendment of the cause title.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

F.A. No. 131 of 2007

¶3

Khedan Mahato and Ors. Appellants(s) Versus State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) and Ors. Respondent(s).

¶4

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.P.BHATT

¶5

--For the appellant(s) : M/s V. Shivnath, Sr. Adv., Niraj Kishore and Birendra Kumar , Advs. For the respondent(s) : M/s A.K. Mehta and Arun Kumar.

¶6

--- Order No.12 Dated 03rd September, 2012. I. A. No. 2653 of 2011

¶7

The present interlocutory application has been filed under Order 41 Rule 5 of the C.P.C. praying therein to stay the further proceeding of Execution Case No. 6/2009, pending in the Court of L.A. Judge, Dhanbad during the pendency of the instant first appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that the applicants have filed one application, which is Annexure-3 to this I.A., under Order 21 Rule 5(2) of the CPC before the Executing Court praying therein for staying of the execution proceeding but the said application is still pending before the Executing Court and no order has been passed. Learned counsel for the applicants states that the next date of of hearing of this case has been fixed by the court below is 7.9.2012.

¶8

Therefore, the court below is directed to deal with and decide the said application in accordance with law after hearing the learned counsel for the parties on its on merit within a period of one months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶9

Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 states that he will not insist for disbursement of amount till the application made by the applicants under order 21 Rule 5(2) CPC is decided by the Court below.

¶11

Accordingly, I.A. No. 2653/2011 stands disposed of.

¶12

I.A. No. 560 of 2008

¶13

This interlocutory application has been filed with a prayer to implead it as party respondent No. 7 under Order 1 Rule 10 r/w Section 151 CPC by M/s Bharat Coking Coalfields Limited (BCCL), Dhanbad, for whose benefits, the land is acquired.

¶14

For the reasons stated in this application, the same is allowed.

¶15

Let M/s BCCL, Dhanbad be added as party respondent No. 7. Necessary amendment be carried out in the cause title of this first appeal, accordingly.

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicants shall supply a copy of the memo of appeal to the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of M/s BCCL, Dhanbad.

¶17

Accordingly, I.A. No. 560 of 2008 stands disposed of.

¶18

(P.P. Bhatt, J.)

¶19

Anu/-

Khedan Mahato And Ors. v. State of Bihar Now Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khedan Mahato And Ors. v. State of Bihar Now Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smritee Ojha Alias Smriti Ojha Alias Smritee Alias Smrite Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Director General of Police

Lakshmi Kant Prasad Vs State of Jharkhand

Satyanand Bhokta Vs State through Anti Corruption Bureau (Vigilance)

Seema Devi Vs State of Jharkhand

Arvind Kumar Pandey Vs the State of Jharkhand

Barti Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand