The High Court dismissed a Civil Miscellaneous Application seeking to add the appellant as a party to an existing partition suit, holding that his presence was unnecessary to complicate matters following a preliminary decree.
Application added as a party was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.24 of 2017
====================================================== Manoj Kumar .... .... Appellant/s Versus Uma Prasad & Ors .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Kumar Uday Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO ORAL ORDER
2 18-01-2017 1. Heard the learned counsel, Mr. Kumar Uday Singh, for the petitioner.
2. Perused the impugned order dated 4.7.2016 passed by learned Sub Judge-14, Motihari in Final Decree (Partition) Case No.145 of 1973 whereby the learned Court below rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for being added as party.
3. It appears that partition suit was filed and it was decreed preliminarily holding that the plaintiff is entitled to 8 annas share in the suit property. The Court below also held that since the suit had been decreed preliminarily and the plaintiff is entitled to only 8 annas share, the petitioner will be entitled to a share in the share of vendor who are parties in the suit and, therefore, at this stage there presence is not necessary.
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.24 of 2017 (2) dt.18-01-2017
2/2
4. Admittedly, it is a partition suit and plaintiff’s share has been decreed up to half share only. The half share is to be allotted in favour of the defendant. The petitioner’s vendor is the defendant and, therefore, at this stage, if the petitioner will be added as party, it will only complicate the matter. Thus, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction.
5. Accordingly, this Civil Misc. Application is dismissed.
(Mungeshwar Sahoo, J)
Sanjeev/-
U T
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Civil Misc. Application filed by the appellant praying to be added as a party should be allowed despite the prior preliminary decree?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Manoj Kumar
Uma Prasad & Ors.
Mungeshwar Sahoo
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
