Dismissed

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

Patna HC23 Sept 2013CWJC/14152/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court dismissed a writ petition under Article 227 challenging an order rejecting a petition for impleadment (Order 1 Rule 10 CPC) under the grounds that the petitioner was not a necessary party and a separate suit already exists.

What did the court decide?

The petition seeking interference with the rejection of the impleadment petition was dismissed.

Most. Mua Kuer and Ors. Vs Nasruddin Ansari @ Sudhu Mian… — Property and Title | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14152 of 2013

¶3

====================================================== 1. Most. Mua Kuer Wife Of Late Rajnath Dusadh Resident Of Village - Lodhi, P.O. And P.S. Chenari, District - Rohtas

¶4

Ram Krit Paswan Son Of Late Rajnath Dusadh Resident Of Village - Lodhi, P.O. And P.S. Chenari, District - Rohtas

¶5

Ram Pyare Paswan Son Of Late Rajnath Dusadh Resident Of Village - Lodhi, P.O. And P.S. Chenari, District - Rohtas

¶6

Binod Paswan Son Of Late Rajnath Dusadh Resident Of Village - Lodhi, P.O. And P.S. Chenari, District - Rohtas

¶7

Smt. Kaushlya Devi Wife Of Basisth Paswan Resident Of Village - Nayakpur, P.O. Ugahani, P.S. Chenari, District - Rohtas

¶8

Smt. Sunaina Devi Wife Of Amrendra Paswan Resident Of Village - Chanwakh, P.O. Sawari, P.S. Kudra, District - Kaimur ( Bhabhua )

¶9

.... .... Petitioners

¶10

Versus

¶11

Nasruddin Ansari @ Sudhu Mian Son Of Late Ghafar Mian Resident Of Village - Lodhi, P.O. And P.S. Chenari, District - Rohtas

¶12

Mumtaj Ansari Son Of Late Ghafar Mian Resident Of Village - Lodhi, P.O. And P.S. Chenari, District - Rohtas

¶13

The State Of Bihar, Through Collector, Rohtas

¶14

Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Hata, P.O. And P.S. Chenari, District - Rohtas 5. Nazir Ahmad @ Budhu Son Of Late Ghafar Mian Resident Of Village - Lodhi, P.S. Chenari, District - Rohtas

¶15

.... .... Respondents

¶16

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioners : Dr. K. N. Singh, Sr. advocate Mr. Mukesh Kumar, advocate For the State : Mr. Mukund Mohan Jha, AC to GP 18

¶17

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

¶18

3 23-09-2013 Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners are aggrieved by an order dated 04.05.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge-I, Sasaram (Rohtas) in Title Appeal No. 36 of 2007 whereby learned court below has rejected a petition dated 27.08.2010 filed by one Rajnath Dusadh, father of these petitioners, under Order 1 Rule 10

¶19

Patna High Court CWJC No.14152 of 2013 (3) dt.23-09-2013

¶20

2/3

¶21

of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶22

From the impugned order it appears that, at the stage of the appeal, the said Rajnath Dusadh filed the said petition under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking his impleadment as a party claiming his title over the suit property. He asserted that he did not know about the pendency of the suit and when he learnt about the pendency of the said Title Appeal No. 36 of 2007, he filed a petition for intervention.

¶23

Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, who are heirs of original petitioner, Rajnath Dusadh, has drawn my attention to an averment made in paragraph 26 of the present application, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, that the petitioners have filed a Title Suit being Title Suit No. 11/11 with respect to the suit property before learned Sub Judge-I, Sasaram and respondent No.2, who is appellant in Title Appeal No. 36/2007, has entered appearance.

¶24

The power of the court to add some one as party to a suit or a proceeding is purely discretionary in nature. Such discretion once exercised, this way or that way, can be interfered by this court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction unless such order is found to be patently illegal and perverse.

¶25

From the impugned order, I find that the court

¶26

Patna High Court CWJC No.14152 of 2013 (3) dt.23-09-2013

¶27

3/3

¶28

below, after due application of mind, has recorded that the petitioner is not a necessary party for enabling the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon the dispute involved in the suit. Further, as has been noted above, the petitioners have filed a separate suit for the adjudication of the dispute.

¶29

In view of above, I do not find inclined to interfere with the impugned order.

¶30

This application is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶31

Any observation made in this application will not

¶32

prejudice the case of the petitioners.

¶33

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J)

¶34

BKS/-

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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.

Prahalad Prasad Sah Vs Md. Anjum Parvez