In an original writ petition challenging a civil summons court order directing evidentiary burden on alleged prior partition, the petitioners sought relief from the lower court. No infirmity was found.
The writ petition was allowed and the impugned order was quashed as there was no infirmity; accordingly disposed of.
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 JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13005 of 2012
======================================================
Versus
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dronacharya For the Respondent/s : Mr. Bipin Kumar Sinha
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 5.6.2012 passed by the learned Sub-Judge-I, Sheikhpura in
Patna High Court CWJC No.13005 of 2012 (2) dt.18-10-2012
2
Title Suit No.24 of 2006, whereby the learned court below accepting the plea of the plaintiffs-respondents has directed the defendant-petitioners to adduce their evidence in the light of the provisions underlying Order 18, rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The suit in question has been filed seeking partition of the joint family property set out in the schedule to the plaint. The petitioners have raised the issue of previous partition said to have taken place in the year 1958. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the court below has directed the petitioners to adduce their evidence as they claim previous partition. No infirmity can be found in the order passed by the court below.
This application is accordingly disposed of.
(Jyoti Saran, J)
SKPathak/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the order directing petitioners to adduce evidence regarding a claimed prior partition under Order 18 rule 1 CPC is infirm.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Arjun Singh and 5 others
Sanjay Kumar and 7 others
Jyoti Saran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
