Dismissed

Sheo Mangal Singh @ Sheo Manga v. Munia Devi and Ors.

Patna HC16 Sept 2013CWJC/18349/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, this court declined to interfere with the Trial Court's order hearing a plaint amendment application before an abatement application under the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings Act, observing that the final outcome would not be prejudiced and directing simultaneous disposal of both applications.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's application for interference was dismissed; court observed that the lower court should consider disposing of both pending applications simultaneously.

Sheo Mangal Singh @ Sheo Manga Vs Munia Devi and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18349 of 2011

¶3

====================================================== Sheo Mangal Singh @ Sheo Mangal Yadav, son of Late Dukhi Yadav, resident of village Chakarhashi, PS Buxar (Mufassil) District Buxar .... .... Petitioner Versus 1(A) Munia Devi W/O Sugan Yadav 1(B) Jhalaki Devi W/O Kesho Singh Yadav 1(C) Ramakant Yadav S/O Ramayan Singh Yadav 1(D) Mohan Yadav S/O Ramayan Singh Yadav

¶4

Sidh Nath Yadav, S/O Late Taluka Yadav, Both are residents of village Chakarhashi PS Buxar (Muffasil) District Buxar

¶5

Mukteshwar Yadav @ Mukteshwar Ahir

¶6

Gupteshwar Yadav, both sons of Late Kailash Yadav

¶7

Lal Babu Yadav

¶8

Jai Prakash Yadav

¶9

Sheo Prakash Yadav, all sons of Late Jangali Yadav 8. Most. Lalo Devi widow of Late Jangali Yadav

¶10

Most Kunti Devi widow of Late Lakchuman Yadav 10. Ram Singashan Yadav, son of Late Dukhi Yadav 11(A). Sudamia Devi W/o Vishwa Mohan Yadav 11(B) Bashistha Singh Yadav S/o Ram Nagina Yadav

¶11

Gangiya Devi, wife of Muni Lal Yadav, resident of village Kushurupa, PO Sarenja PS Rajpur District Buxar 13. Bechu Yadav 14. Sri Kishun Yadav, both sons of Late Piyari Yadav 15. Kedar Yadav, son of Late Ramayan Yadav, respondents Nos. 13 to 15 are residents of village Chakarhashi PS Buxar Mufassil District Buxar 16(I) Radha Pyari Devi W/o Suraj Singh Yadav Village Bare PS Gahmer Distt. Gajipur 17 (A) BAL Bachan Singh Yadav S/o Yamuna Yadav 17(B) Mohan Singh Yadav S/o Yamuna Yadav 18(A) Ram Nagina Yadav S/O Shri Kewal Yadav 18(B) Baban Yadav S/o Shri Kewal Yadav

¶12

Raj Kishore Singh, S/o Shri Kewal Singh, mother- Jamuni Devi, resident of village Narwar PS Kochas PO Kochas District Rohtas .... .... Respondents

¶13

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Ram Chandra Singh Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh Mr. Shankar Kumar For the Respondents : Mr. Md. Waliur Rahman Mr. Susant Praveer

¶14

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

¶15

Patna High Court CWJC No.18349 of 2011 (27) dt.16-09-2013

¶16

2/4

¶17

27 16-09-2013

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents.

¶19

The petitioner, in the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is defendant in Title Suit No. 324 of 2002 pending in the court of learned Sub Judge-III, Buxar. He is aggrieved by an order dated 23.07.2008 passed by learned court below.

¶20

From the impugned order, it appears that petitioner filed an application under section 4(c) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (‘in short the Act’) seeking abatement of the suit on the ground that after notification under section 3 of the Act, consolidation proceedings in the area is going on and the same has not been de-notified so far. It further appears that, after filing of the application under section 4(c) of the Act, the respondents/ plaintiffs filed an application seeking certain amendments in the plaint. The dispute between the parties only is as to which applications of these two should be heard first. By the impugned order, the court below, after considering submissions made on behalf of the parties, came to a conclusion that application for amendment should be heard first and whereafter application under section 4(c) of the Act will be heard.

¶21

Patna High Court CWJC No.18349 of 2011 (27) dt.16-09-2013

¶22

3/4

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the application under section 4(c) of the Act was filed prior to the application for amendment and, therefore, his application should have been heard first. He submits that by seeking amendment in the plaint the plaintiffs are trying to amend the very nature of the suit and such amendment may cause prejudice to the petitioner’s case.

¶24

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that there is no jurisdictional error in the impugned order and it needs no interference by this court in a proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶25

After having heard the rival submissions of the parties, I am of the view that this court in a proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is not required to pre judge the issue. Whether the amendment will be allowed or not is a discretion vested in the court which has so far not been exercised. The suit under section 4(c) of the Act will abate only under the orders of the Court which order has so far not been passed. If, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the court has thought it proper to consider the amendment petition first, this court in supervisory

¶26

Patna High Court CWJC No.18349 of 2011 (27) dt.16-09-2013

¶27

4/4

¶28

jurisdiction should not interfere with such order as it is not going to prejudice the final result of the petitioner’s case one way or the other.

¶29

In view of above, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. However, it is observed that the court below should consider disposing of both applications simultaneously, as early as possible.

¶30

With this observation, this application is disposed

¶31

of.

¶32

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J)

¶33

BKS/-

Sheo Mangal Singh @ Sheo Manga v. Munia Devi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheo Mangal Singh @ Sheo Manga v. Munia Devi 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

Sachidanand Panday Vs Sheo Shankar Pandey and Anr.

Rakhi Sinha @ Rakhi and Anr. Vs Kamal Kishore Sinha @ Kamal Ki

Nishit Kumar Singh @ Nishant K Vs Ramanand Prasad Gupta and Ors.

Deochandra Sah @ Jaichandra Sah Vs Srimati Manju Lata Mishra

Mahadeo Mahto and Ors. Vs Sunita Devi and Ors.

Shakeena Devi Vs Mostt. Kamlawati Devi and Anr.