Allowed

Md. Idris and Ors. v. Md. Akhtar and Ors.

Patna HC16 Jan 2013C.R./1707/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Patna disposed of a Civil Revision Application concerning partition property where the Court allowed the petitioners to withdraw the application, granting them liberty to seek appropriate legal remedies due to their non-party status in the underlying suit.

What did the court decide?

Permission allowed to withdraw the application with liberty to take recourse to appropriate legal remedies.

Md. Idris and Ors. Vs Md. Akhtar and Ors. — Partition | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Revision No.1707 of 2009

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Md. Idris, son of late Siraj (Defendant no.2), resident of VillageSinghaul, P.S.- Singhaul (O.P.), District- Begusarai.

¶5

Istyak

¶6

Mustak

¶7

Mustakeen

¶8

All are sons of Mahboob (defendant no.5A) and are residents of

¶9

Village- Daulatpur, P.S. Bibhutipur, District- Begusarai.

¶10

.... .... Petitioner/s Versus

¶11

Md. Akhtar, son of late Ghamru Mian (defendant no.6A). 2. Most. Jaitun (expunged vide order dated 10.9.2012) 3. Ali Hasan, son of late Chamru Mian (Defendant no.6B)

¶12

Md. Abdul Hakim (expunged vide order dated 10.9.2012)

¶13

4(i) Md. Islam, son of late Abdul Hakim 4(ii) Md. Kalam, son of late Abdul Hakim 4(iii) Md. Alam, son of late Abdul Hakim 4(iv) Md. Zuber, son of late Abdul Hakim

¶14

Mahboob Mian (expunged vide order dated 10.9.2012). All are residents of Village- Singhaul, P.S. - Singhaul, District- Begusarai. .... .... Opposite Party/s

¶15

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhay Kumar Singh 1 Mr. Bharat Bhushan

¶16

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER

¶17

12 16-01-2013 The matter has been posted today under the heading ‘For orders on office notes’ with regard to service of notice effected on the substituted heirs of opposite party no.4 who had deceased during the pendency of the proceedings.

¶18

This civil revision application is directed against the order dated 15.6.2009 passed by Sri B.K. Mishra, Munsif 2^nd , Begusarai in Title Suit No.26 of 1979, whereby the petition filed

¶19

by the petitioners for carving out a separate Patti in respect of

¶20

Patna High Court C.R. No.1707 of 2009 (12) dt.16-01-2013

¶21

¶22

their shares has been rejected, inter alia, on grounds that the petitioners were not parties when the preliminary decree was passed on 30.1.1988.

¶23

Mr. Abhay Kumar Singh No.1, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has admitted the position that the petitioners are not parties to the suit though the fathers of petitioner no.1 and petitioner nos.2 to 4 were defendant nos.2 and defendant no. 5A in the suit but have since deceased and these petitioners have not been substituted in their respective place. It is submitted that even the plaintiff Most. Jaitun has deceased. Mr. Singh in the circumstances seeks permission to withdraw this application to enable the petitioners to take recourse to such appropriate legal remedies as may be available to them under law.

¶24

Permission is allowed.

¶25

This civil revision application is disposed of with the liberty aforesaid.

¶26

(Jyoti Saran, J)

¶27

SKPathak/-

Md. Idris and Ors. v. Md. Akhtar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Idris and Ors. v. Md. Akhtar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagdish Choudhary Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Pratima Devi and Anr. Vs Binita Devi and Ors.

Sonelal Mahto @ Sonelal Sah Vs Sheo Shankar Mahto and Ors.

Vikash Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar

Kanhaiya Kumar Paswan Vs The State Of Bihar

Umesh Sah @ Umesh Shaw Vs The State Of Bihar