Dismissed

Prahalad Prasad Sah v. Md. Anjum Parvez

Patna HC23 Sept 2013CWJC/10199/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application seeking to quash an order rejecting an application under Order 14 Rule 2 CPC, the Single Judge found no illegality in characterizing a discrepancy between filing and verification dates as a curable irregularity rather than a bar to maintainability. The application was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The application seeking quashing of the order dated 11.09.2012 is dismissed.

Prahalad Prasad Sah Vs Md. Anjum Parvez — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10199 of 2013

¶2

====================================================== 1. Prahalad Pd. Sah S/O Late Deep Narayan Sah R/O Mohalla- Ganitola Katihar, P.S. Katihar, District- Katihar .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. Md. Anjum Parvez S/O Late Haji Irshad Hussain R/O Mohalla- Barbanna Katihar, P.S.- Katihar, District- Katihar .... .... Respondent ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Jagdish Prasad Bhagat For the Respondent : Mr. Sushanta Kr. Das Mr. Sunil Kr. Tiwari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 2 23-09-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.

¶3

This is an application seeking quashing of the order dated 11.09.2012 passed by learned Munsif, Katihar in Eviction Suit No. 2 of 2006 whereby the petitioner’s application dated 18.08.2012 under Order 14 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected.

¶4

From the impugned order it appears that, by the said application dated 18.08.2012 the petitioner, who is defendant in the court below, questioned the maintainability of the suit on the ground that the suit was filed on 17.04.2006 but from the certified copy of the plaint it appeared that the plaint was verified on

¶5

Patna High Court CWJC No.10199 of 2013 (2) dt.23-09-2013

¶6

2/2

¶7

27.04.2006. On this ground alone the defendant contended that the

¶8

suit was not maintainable.

¶9

Learned court below, however, rejected the application on the ground that the same is a mere irregularity and does not touch the merits of the case and that there could be mistake in affidavit and verification and such irregularity could be remedied at a later stage.

¶10

I do not find any illegality in the impugned order.

¶11

This application is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶12

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J)

¶13

BKS/-

Prahalad Prasad Sah v. Md. Anjum Parvez

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prahalad Prasad Sah v. Md. Anjum Parvez

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yogendra Paswan Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Gopi Nath Kashyap and Anr. Vs Dwarika Prasad Kashyap and Ors.

Deo Narayan Kamti Vs Surendra Kumar Singh @ Shyamal

Smt. Archana Devi and Anr. Vs Ram Naresh Prasad

Parvati Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs The Bihar State Electricity Board and Ors.

Most. Mua Kuer and Ors. Vs Nasruddin Ansari @ Sudhu Mian and Ors.