The High Court dismissed a civil miscellaneous petition seeking leave to add a purchaser of land as a necessary party to an ongoing title appeal, holding that such a party was not necessary for a just decision.
The petition for impleading Jagdish Tanti as a necessary 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.2115 of 2017
======================================================
Sri Sadhu Das @ Sadhu Tanti S/o Late Tulsi Das resident of village - Ucchati, P.S. - Biraul, District - Darbhanga.
... ... Petitioner
... ... Respondent/Defendant 1st Set
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Girish Chandra Jha For the Respondent/s : Mr. ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER
2 05-10-2018
appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
The petitioner has filed this civil miscellaneous petition against the order dated 13.09.2017, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 2nd , Benipur in Title Appeal No.15 of 2013 by which the petition of the petitioner filed under Order I Rule 10 for impleading Jagdish Tanti as Respondent 3rd Set has been rejected.
The petitioner is respondent no.1 in Title Appeal No.15 of 2013. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner executed sale deed with regard to a piece of land in favour of Jagdish Tanti. The suit was decreed. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner-respondent no.1 filed petition for
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.2115 of 2017(2) dt.05-10-2018 2/2
impleading Jagdish Tanti, the purchaser of the land, as a party for just decision of the case but the same has been rejected on the ground that the land sold by the petitioner in favour of Jagdish Tanti is not the subject matter of the suit and the appeal arising out of the judgment and decree passed in the suit.
Considering the facts that since the land sold by respondent no.1-petitioner is not the subject matter of the suit and Jagdish Tanti is not at all necessary/proper party for just decision of the case, I find that the learned Additional District Judge, 2nd , Benipur, Darbhanga has rightly dismissed the petition of the petitioner filed under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC. Consequently this civil miscellaneous petition is
dismissed.
(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J)
S.KUMAR/-
U
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petition for impleading Jagdish Tanti under Order I Rule 10 CPC should have been allowed despite the sold land not being the subject matter of the appeal.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sadhu Das @ Sadhu Tanti
Babu Narayan Sharma
Madhava Dev @ Madhava Tanti
Prabhat Kumar Jha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
