Dismissed

Brahmdeo Yadav v. Jagdish Manjhi and Ors.

Patna HC19 Sept 2013CWJC/12825/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an application under writ jurisdiction seeking setting aside the order of the Additional District Judge allowing substitution under Order 22 Rule 3(2) CPC after condoning delay. The High Court declined to interfere, finding no grave injustice and no merit in the application.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed. No order for substitution or condonation of delay interfered with.

Brahmdeo Yadav Vs Jagdish Manjhi and Ors. — Property and Title | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12825 of 2012

¶2

====================================================== Brahmdeo Yadav son of Kallu Yadav, resident of village – Bhalua PS Bodh Gaya District- Gaya .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. Jagdish Manjhi 2. Sarju Manjhi 3. Rajendra Manjhi, all sons of Teileshwar Manjhi, residents of villageBhalua, P.S. Bodh Gaya District- Gaya 4(a) Sukari Devi wife of Sahari Manjhi, d/o Late Pun Bhuiyan, resident of village –Ratingha, PS Bodh Gaya Dist- Gaya 4(b) Lochani Devi wife of Dinesh Manjhi, d/o Late Pun Bhuiyan, resident of village Dumari PS Bodh Gaya Dist- Gaya 4(c) Marni Devi wife of Tileshwar Manjhi, d/o Late Pun Bhuiyan, resident of village Dumari PS Bodh Gaya Dist- Gaya 5. Amriki Manjhi son of Late Rameshwar Manjhi, resident of village Bhalua PS Bodh Gaya, Dist- Gaya 6(a) Most. Sitabiya Devi wife of Late Lekha Yadav 6(b) Brahmdeo Yadav, son of Late Lekha Yadav 6(c) Chandradeo Yadav, all residents of village Bhalua PS Bodh Gaya DistGaya 6(d) Daulati Devi wife of Naresh Yadav, d/o Late Lokha Yadav, resident of village Sapani, PS Bodh Gaya Dist- Gaya 6(e) Gauri Devi wife of Shiva Balak Yadav, d/o Late Lokha Yadav, resident of village Khagaria PS Atari Dist- Gaya 6(f) Shamphulwa Devi wife of Surendra Yadav d/o Late Lekha Yadav, resident of village Shobha Bigha PO Cherki PS Bodh Gaya Dist- Gaya 7 Diwakar Singh, son of Sheo Nath Singh 8 Sudhakar Singh, son of Sheo Nath Singh 9 Tetari Devi wife of Sheo Nath Singh, all residents of village- Bhagwanpur PS Bodh Gaya Dist- Gaya 10(a) Most. Munni Devi wife of Late Kauleshwar Yadav 10(b) Gora Yadav son of Late Kauleshwar Yadav 10(c) Most. Asha Devi wife of Nandu Yadav d/o Late Kauleshwar Yadav, all residents of village Bhalua PS Bodh Gaya Dist- Gaya 10(d) Rita Devi wife of Tetar Yadav, d/o Late Nandu Yadav, resident of village Mani Chak PS Barachatti, Dist- Gaya 10(e) Sunita Devi wife of Lalan Yadav d/o Late Nandu Yadav, resident of village Ganga Bigha, P.S. Bodh Gaya Dist- Gaya 10(f) Babita Devi wife of Raju Yadav, d/o of Late Nandu Yadav, resident of village Tikuna, PS Bodh Gaya Dist- Gaya 10(g) Kavita Kumari d/o Late Nandu Yadav 10(h) Kameshwar Kumar son of Late Nandu Yadav 10(i) Deepak Kumar son of Late Nandu Yadav, all residents of village Bhalua, PS Bodh Gaya Dist- Gaya .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad Sinha, advocate For the Respondents :

¶3

Patna High Court CWJC No.12825 of 2012 (2) dt.19-09-2013

¶4

2/3

¶5

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶7

2 19-09-2013

¶8

This application has been filed for setting aside the order dated 29.05.2012 passed by learned Additional District Judge-IV, Gaya in Title Appeal No. 59 of 2012 whereby the court below has allowed an application filed by the defendant/ appellant under Order 22 Rule 3, under Order 22 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 5 of the Limitation Act and has, thus, set aside the abatement after condoning the delay and allowed the legal heirs of deceased appellant to be substituted in his place.

¶9

It has been strenuously submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.1 died on 01.01.2001 and as no steps for substitution were taken, the appeal before the court below abated by operation of Order 22 Rule 3(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶10

Substitution petition was filed after lapse of nearly nine years, seeking setting aside the abatement as also seeking condonation of delay in filing the application for substitution. It has been submitted that the court below has illegally allowed the application on erroneous considerations.

¶11

This has to be kept in mind that this court, in

¶12

Patna High Court CWJC No.12825 of 2012 (2) dt.19-09-2013

¶13

3/3

¶14

exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is required to interfere with an order passed by a subordinate court if by such order grave injustice has been caused to the parties. In the present case, it appears that the court below has allowed the application for setting aside the abatement and substitution after condoning the delay for the ends of justice. This court is not required even to test the legality of such order under supervisory jurisdiction. I find no merit in this application. It is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶15

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J)

¶16

BKS/-

Brahmdeo Yadav v. Jagdish Manjhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brahmdeo Yadav v. Jagdish Manjhi 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

Rajesh Kumar Singh Vs Pramod Singh

Malti Mehta Vs Hare Krishna Mahtha and Ors.

Subodh Sagar @ Subodh Sagar Sharma Vs Saroj Kumar

Rabindra Prasad Vs Sita Devi

Saroj Kumar and Anr. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Sita Ram Dushad Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.