Dismissed

Smt. Shiv Kali Devi v. Lalita Devi and Ors.

Patna HC22 Nov 2016CWJC/13294/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought writ remedy under Article 227 challenging the single judge's order accepting a fresh written statement over her objection. The court found the inter-se dispute was not the suit's subject and dismissed the writ, directing expeditious suit hearing.

What did the court decide?

The application for writ of certiorari/jurisdictional review is dismissed. The lower court is directed to hear the suit expeditiously.

Smt. Shiv Kali Devi Vs Lalita Devi and Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Patna HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13294 of 2013

¶3

=========================================================== 1. Smt. Shiv Kali Devi Wife Of Nathuni Mahto Resident Of Village- Siswa Maldahiya, P.O.- Siswa, P.S.- Paharpur, Dist- East Champaran

¶4

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

Lalita Devi Wife Of Bharat Prasad, Resident Of Village- Noniya Tola, Mahto Tola, P.O.- Noniya, P.S.- Paharpur, Dist- East Champaran

¶7

Ram Kali Devi Wife Of Late Ramchandra Prasad, Resident Of Village- Noniya Mahto Tola, P.O.- Noniya, P.S.- Paharpur, Dist- East Champaran

¶8

Bharat Prasad Son Of Domo Prasad Resident Of Village- Noniya Tola, P.S.Paharpur, Dist- East Champaran, At Present Resident Of Village- Siswa Maldahiya, P.O.- Siswa Bazar, P.S.- Paharpur, Dist- East Champaran

¶9

.... .... Respondent/s

¶10

=========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. RAJESH KUMAR, ADV For the Respondent/s : Mr.

¶11

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. NATH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 22-11-2016

¶12

Heard Mr. Ranjan Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for

¶13

the petitioner.

¶14

By the impugned order the learned court below has allowed the prayer of the Defendant No. 2 and has accepted the fresh written statement filed by her upholding her plea that she had never filed the written statement said to have been filed by her alongwith the Defendant No. 3.

¶15

Patna High Court CWJC No.13294 of 2013 dt.22-11-2016

¶16

¶17

The petitioner is defendant no. 1 in the suit.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that earlier in the written statement which was filed by the Defendant No. 2 jointly with Defendant No. 3 the assertions were made in support of the plaintiff but by filing the fresh written statement which has been accepted by the learned court below by the impugned order the assertions have been made only against the Defendant No. 1. It has, therefore, been contended that the learned court below has committed error in law in allowing the prayer of the Defendant No. 2 for ignoring the previous written statement filed by her and accepting her fresh written statement.

¶19

After considering the submissions and perusal of the impugned order as well as the materials on record, it is pellucid that in the fresh written statement the Defendant No. 2 has made allegations only against the Defendant No. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no allegation either in support or against the plaintiff has been made in the fresh written statement. It is seemly to notice that in such circumstances the inter se dispute between Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 2 cannot be the subject matter of the suit as filed by the plaintiff. The learned court below has passed the impugned order by considering the facts and circumstances of the case. This Court, therefore, is not inclined to

¶20

Patna High Court CWJC No.13294 of 2013 dt.22-11-2016

¶21

¶22

invoke its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for interdicting the same.

¶23

The application is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶24

The petitioner shall have the liberty to raise objection under Section 105 C.P.C if such occasion arises.

¶25

At this juncture the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is ready to co-operate with the court for early disposal of the suit which has been filed in the year 2010. The learned Court below is accordingly directed to take up the hearing of the suit and dispose it of expeditiously.

¶26

(V. Nath, J) Ranjan/U

Smt. Shiv Kali Devi v. Lalita Devi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shiv Kali Devi v. Lalita Devi 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

Md. Shahid Anwar Vs Bibi Tasarrun Nazrin

Jagat Prasad Rai and Ors. Vs Mostt. Dewanti Kuwar and Ors.

Rameshish Singh and Ors. Vs Jagdish Singh and Ors.

Lakhi Paswan Vs Shivajee Tiwari and Ors.

Sunil Kumar Singh Vs Smt. Shail Ojha and Ors.

Sanjay Sah Vs Arbind Prasad and Ors.