Jagendra Nath Mahto And Ors. Vs Ram Kumar Mahto And Ors.

10.Chhutu Mahto, S/o Late Kanhai Mahto. 11.Sita Devi, W/o Gubiram Mahto. 12.Ghanshyam Mahto, S/o Late Bidda Mahto. 13.Anjani Devi, W/o Late Bido Mahto.

¶44

14.Ranjan Mahto, S/o Late Kanhai Mahto. 15.Satyabhama Devi, W/o Late Anant Ram Mahto 16.Nitu Devi, W/o Bishnu Charan Mahto. 17.Dayawati Devi, D/o Late Bido Mahto. 18.Smt. Lalan Devi, W/o Late Mochi Ram Mahto. 19.Sulochana Devi, W/o Dilip Kumar Mahto. 20.Sumedha Kumari @ Datia, D/o Late Bhola Mahto. 21.Suresh Mahto, S/o Bebu Mahto. 22.Sarla Devi, W/o Pado Mahto

¶45

23.Kalawati Devi, D/o Late Bido Mahto, W/o Babu Lal Chaudhary.

¶46

24.Thanda Kumari, minor daughter of Late Kanhai Mahto. . 25.Gangadhar Mahto, S/o Late Tirath Mahto. 26.Harihar Mahto, S/o Late Tirath Mahto. 27.Misila Kumari, minor daughter of Koila Mahto. 28.Bachini Bala Devi, W/o Mangan Sai Mahto. 29.Dhammi Devi, W/o Late Dhaneshwar Mahto. 30.Pashupati Mahto, S/o Late Dhaneshwar Mahto. 31.Rasoraj Mahto, S/o Late Dhaneshwar Mahto. 32.(a) Biroja Devi, W/o Late Paresh Mahto. (b) Chandra Mohan Mahto, S/o Late Paresh Mahto. (c) Lakhiendra Mahto, S/o Late Paresh Mahto. 33.Fuleshwari Devi, W/o Sripati Mahto 34.Shalita Devi, W/o Bishnu Charan Mahto. 35.Mostt. Charki Mahatwain, W/o Kanchan Mahto. 36.Rajeshwar Mahto, S/o Late Hari Mahto. 37.Haldhar Mahto, S/o Late Hari Mahto. 38.Bhawanath Mahato, S/o Late Hari Mahto. 39.Jayamati Kumari, D/o Late Hari Mahto. 40.Anjani Kumar, D/o Late Hari Mahto. 41.Smt. Parbhawati Devi, W/o Prabhlal Mahto. .......... Respondents. -----

¶47

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶48

----For the Petitioners : Mr. Ayush Aditya, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Laxman Kumar, Advocate ----- Order No.26 Date: 07.03.2025

¶49

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 10^th January, 2011 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) passed by the Sub Judge-IV, Ranchi in Partition Suit No.92 of 1974

¶50

2- W.P.(C) No.1128 of 2011

¶51

(Nandlal Mahto & Ors. Vs. Ram Kumar Mahto & Ors.), whereby the petition dated 19^th November, 2010 filed on behalf of the defendants/respondents was allowed, staying further proceeding of the said suit merely on the ground that Second Appeal No.299 of 2006 filed by the defendants/respondents was pending.

¶52

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering that Second Appeal No.299 of 2006 preferred by the defendants/ respondents is pending before a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the petitioners should have taken steps in the said second appeal itself apprising the said appellate court regarding the order dated 10^th January, 2011 subsequently passed by the original court instead of preferring the present writ petition.

¶53

Under the said circumstance, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition. However, the petitioners are given liberty to agitate the issue with respect to passing of the impugned order dated 10^th January, 2011 in Partition Suit No.92 of 1974 in the said pending second appeal.

¶54