Single judge dismissed an Article 227 writ petition challenging an order allowing intervention applications in a partition suit, holding the trial court had jurisdiction under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and impleadment does not declare co-parcenary status.
Application under Article 227 dismissed. Order of Sub Judge setting aside the impugned order.
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.1708 of 2017
======================================================
Tirath Kumar, Son of Thagai Mahto, resident of village - Laxmipur, P.S. Valmiki Nagar, District - West Champaran.
... ... Plaintiff-Petitioner
Versus
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1708 of 2017 dt.20-09-2019 2/4
... ... Respondents 3rd Set ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajan-Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT
20-09-2019
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1708 of 2017 dt.20-09-2019 3/4
suit. According to him, the trial Court also failed to appreciate that the impleadment would create a vested right in the interveners as they would be treated as coparceners.
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1708 of 2017 dt.20-09-2019 4/4
(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J)
vikash/-
| AFR/NAFR | NAFR |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | N.A. |
| Uploading Date | 24.09.2019 |
| Transmission Date | 24.09.2019 |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Trial Court erred in law by allowing the intervention application to implead respondents as defendants in a partition suit.
Whether mere impleadment of interveners as defendants amounts to a declaration that they are coparceners of the plaintiff.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Tirath Kumar
Lakshmi Mahato
Babunandan Mahto
Ashwani Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
