Dismissed

Anil Kumar v. Sunil Kumar and Ors.

Patna HC3 Oct 2016C.Misc./807/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court dismissed the appellant's civil miscellaneous application challenging an order allowing an amendment to add a party in a partition suit. The court held no reason to interfere with the lower court's decision before the merit on the amendment's specific grounds was decided.

What did the court decide?

The civil miscellaneous application was dismissed with no interference in the impugned order.

Anil Kumar Vs Sunil Kumar and Ors. — Partition | Patna HC (2016)

¶1

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.807 of 2016 (2) dt.03-10-2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.807 of 2016

¶3

	====================================================== Anil Kumar .... .... Appellant/s Versus Sunil Kumar & Ors .... .... Respondent/s ======================================================
	Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Lala Sachindra Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr.
	====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO ORAL ORDER
2	03-10-2016 Heard learned counsel, Mr. Lalal Schindra Kumar, appearing for the petitioner.
	2. Perused the impugned order dated 23.06.2016 passed
	by the Sub-Judge-VI, Sitamarhi in Partition Suit No. 128 of 2007,
	whereby the learned court below has allowed the amendment application.
	3. As has been submitted by the learned counsel for the
	petitioner, in the suit, issues have not yet been framed, therefore, it
	is a pre trial amendment. So far the submission of the learned
	counsel for the petitioner that the same prayer has already been rejected earlier is concerned, it is also admitted fact that the court
	below rejected the amendment on the ground that the person in whose name the property stands is not a party. Therefore, the present application for amendment has been filed by the plaintiff-
	respondent for adding the person i.e. Shyama Kumari as party and

¶4

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.807 of 2016 (2) dt.03-10-2016

¶5

then prayed for partition of the property. Now, therefore, it cannot be said that earlier rejection order will operate as res-judicata . So far the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the property belonged to the lady member of the family, who cannot be the coparcener, is concerned, it may be stated that this relates to the merit of the amendment application filed by the petitioner. This question cannot be decided at the time of hearing of the amendment application in view of the decision of Supreme Court reported in 2006 (4) SCC 385 and also 2008 (17) SCC 671 .

¶6

In view of the above facts and circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with impugned order in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. Accordingly, this civil miscellaneous application is dismissed.

¶7

Brajesh/U

¶8

(Mungeshwar Sahoo, J)

Anil Kumar v. Sunil Kumar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar v. Sunil Kumar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bharat Kumar Vs Ram Lakhan Bind and Ors.

Kalawati Devi and Ors. Vs American Prasad

Sultan Mian Vs Ravindra Choubey and Ors.

Sunil Kumar Dugar Vs Udyot Kumar Kothari and Ors.

Uday Chandra Bhaskar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Lalta Mistri Vs Virendra Kumar Sah