Allowed

Bina Keshri @ Bina Devi v. Gopal Kr. Modi and Ors.

Patna HC10 Jan 2018C.Misc./600/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed the Civil Misc. petition allowing the defendant to contest a Title Suit after setting aside an impugned ex-parte order due to jurisdictional error. The court directed the Sub Judge to dispose of the suit within four months.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 16.01.2017 was set aside; the petitioner is allowed to file a written statement within two weeks; the suit must be disposed of within four months.

Bina Keshri @ Bina Devi Vs Gopal Kr. Modi and Ors. — Property and Title | Patna HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.600 of 2017

¶2

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

¶3

Bina Keshri @ Bina Devi W/o Sri Anil Prasad keshari, daughter of Satya Narayan Keshri Resident of Village- Chowk Bazar,Near Rirpa Rampur, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Munger, at Present Address sector 80 New Quarter No. 3/90,Bokaro Steel City(Jharkhand).

¶4

.... .... Appellant/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

Gopal Kr. Modi Son of late Vidhyanath Modi

¶7

Smt. Rita Devi Wife of Sri Gopal Kr Modi both the resident of Mohalla Shayampur, P.S. Kotwali munger, Sub Post Office Basudevpur , within Town Munger sub Registry and District Munger.

¶8

Lalan Pd. Keshri @ Shushil Prasad Keshri

¶9

Dablu Pd. Keshri both sons of late Satyanarayan Pd. keshri resident of Mohalla:- Chowk Bazar, Kispro Rampur, Police Station Kotwali DistrictMunger

¶10

Bijay Pd. Keshri @ Babloo Pd. Keshri Son of late Satyanarayan Pd. Keshri Resident of Mohalla- chow Bazar, Kispro Rampur, Police StationKotwali, District- Munger.

¶11

Shanti Devi widow of late Satya Narayan Pd. Keshri both resident of Mohalla- chowk Bazar, near Rampur Police Kotwali, District- Munger.

¶12

.... .... Respondent/s

¶13

====================================================== Appearance :

¶14

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Deep Nishi For the Respondent/s : Mr.

¶15

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER

¶16

3 10-01-2018 Heard both sides.

¶17

The petitioner filed this petition for setting aside the order dated 16.01.2017 passed in Title Suit No.67 of 2001.

¶18

Petitioner is defendant No.5 in Title Suit No.67 of 2001. The petitioner could not appear in the suit as according to the petitioner she did not receive any notice. The petitioner filed a petition on 08.12.2016 to recall the order dated 15.12.2008 fixing

¶19

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.600 of 2017 (3) dt.10-01-2018

¶20

2/3

¶21

the case ex.-parte against the petitioner and allowed him to file written statement. But the learned Sub Judge rejected the petition of the petitioner on 16.01.2017. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred this petition.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner ever received any notice of Title Suit No.67 of 2001. Notice was sent on wrong address of the petitioner. Petitioner did not get good relation with his other family members and that why he did not get knowledge about the pendnecy of the suit. But the learned Sub Judge without any cogent reason rejected the petition for recalling the ex.-parte hearing of the suit.

¶23

Mr. Harshwardhan Sahay, the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents-plaintiffs very fairly submitted that the suit should be decided on merit on contest but it is dilatory tactics of the petitioner-defendant No.5 who did not appear even after having knowledge of the suit. Now, the defendant No.5 has appeared, if he is allowed to contest the suit, a direction be issued to dispose of the suit within two months.

¶24

Having considered the submissions of both sides, I find that the learned Sub Judge has committed jurisdictional error by rejecting the petition of the petitioner-defendant No.5 for recalling

¶25

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.600 of 2017 (3) dt.10-01-2018

¶26

3/3

¶27

the order dated 15.12.2008 fixing the suit for ex.-parte hearing. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner received any notice issued against him. There is no material or record to show that the petitioner having knowledge about the pendency of the suit and he did not appear in spite of having knowledge about the pendency of the suit. Accordingly, this Civil Misc. petition is allowed and the order dated 16.01.2017 passed in Title Suit No.67 of 2001 is set aside and the petitioner is allowed to contest the suit by filing written statement within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The learned Sub Judge shall make all efforts to dispose of the suit within four months thereafter.

¶28

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J)

¶29

Sanjeev/-

¶30

U T

Bina Keshri @ Bina Devi v. Gopal Kr. Modi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bina Keshri @ Bina Devi v. Gopal Kr. Modi 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

Subodh Kumar Vs Sharad Chandra Prasad and Ors.

Uma Shankar Chaudhary Vs Vakil Ansari and Ors.

Dewanti Devi Vs Sheela Devi and Ors.

Din Dayal Prasad and Ors. Vs Deva Nand Prasad and Ors.

Raju Tanti Vs The State Of Bihar

Sujit Kumar @ Sujit Kumar Sah @ Rahul Vs The State Of Bihar