Allowed

Arvind Kumar @ Munna Kumar @ Arabind Kumar v. Chintu Kumar and Ors.

Patna HC24 Nov 2017C.Misc./526/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court allowed this civil miscellaneous application after holding that an order by the Sub Judge, which allowed a plaintiff's petition in a partition suit without providing any reasons, was bad, illegal, and lacks reasoning. The order dated 10.06.2016 was set aside.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 10.06.2016 passed in Partition Suit No.333 of 2012 was set aside, and the applicant was directed to pass a reasoned order afresh.

Arvind Kumar @ Munna Kumar @ Arabind Kumar Vs Chintu Kumar and Ors. — Partition | Patna HC (2017)

¶1

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.526 of 2016 (3) dt.24-11-2017 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.526 of 2016

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Arvind Kumar @ Munna Kumar @ Arabind Kumar S/o Late Madheswar Singh, Resident of village + P.O. + P.S. Karpi, District - Arwal

¶5

.... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. Chintu Kumar S/o Late Sri Mohan Singh, resident of village - Karpi, P.O. Karpi, District - Arwal ………respondent 1^st party 2. Bipin Kumar Son of Late Sri Mohan Singh 3. Jai Mani Devi W/o Late Sri Mohan Singh All resident of village - P.O.P.S. Karpi, District - Arwal .... .... Respondent 2^nd party

¶6

====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Arbind Kumar Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER

¶7

3 24-11-2017 Heard both sides.

¶8

The petitioner has filed this civil miscellaneous application against the order dated 10.06.2016 passed in Partition Suit No.333 of 2012 by which the learned Sub Judge 1^st , Arwal allowed the petition dated 26.05.2016 of the plaintiff.

¶9

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Sub Judge has not given any reason for allowing the petition dated 26.05.2016 and the order is cryptic and without any reason on such, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1^st set-plaintiff although submitted that the documents filed by the plaintiff is essential for just decision of the case and

¶10

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.526 of 2016 (3) dt.24-11-2017 2

¶11

the Court can allow the petition of the plaintiff at any stage before the delivery of the judgment under its inherent jurisdiction but at the same time, could not be able to support the order as the same sans any reasoning. It is evident from perusal of the order dated 10.06.2016 passed in Partition Suit No.333 of 2012 itself that the learned Sub Judge has allowed the petition of the plaintiff without giving any reason and on this ground alone, I find that the order is bad and illegal.

¶12

Accordingly, the order dated 10.06.2016 is set aside. The civil miscellaneous application is allowed. The learned Sub Judge is directed to pass a reasoned order afresh after hearing both sides on the petition of the plaintiff.

¶13

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J)

¶14

Saurabh/-

¶15

U T

Arvind Kumar @ Munna Kumar @ Arabind Kumar v. Chintu Kumar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind Kumar @ Munna Kumar @ Arabind Kumar v. Chintu Kumar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Tawakal Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Ashutosh Kumar Vs The Union Of India and Ors.

Arun Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Sudhir Kumar Thakur and Anr. Vs Lakshmi Devi and Ors.

Urmila Devi Vs Rupkali Devi and Ors.

Bhatu Paswan Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.