The Patna High Court dismissed a writ petition under Article 227 challenging the rejection of an application under Order 1 Rule 10(1) CPC to implead Shami Ahmed as a necessary party in a title suit. The court held the lower court's conclusion was not perverse.
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.198 of 2019
======================================================
Sunayana Devi aged about 45 years (F) W/o Raju Prasad @ Raj Kumar Prasad Resident of Village-Dhaniapatti,Motihari,P.O. and P.S. Motihari,Dist.East Champartan
... ... Plaintiff-petitioner
Versus
... ... Respondents
====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr.Nagendra Upadhyay For the Respondent/s : Mr.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 04-04-2019
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
material on record.
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.198 of 2019 dt.04-04-2019 2/4
aside the order dated 10.12.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sadar in Title Suit No. 103 of 1995 corresponding to CIS (T.S.) 5058 of 2016 with regard to her whereby the petition dated 23.07.2016 filed by the plaintiffpetitioner under order 1 rule 10(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’) has been dismissed.
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.198 of 2019 dt.04-04-2019 3/4
29.01.1987 as forged and fabricated. Respondent no. 7 contested the suit and filed written statement. Later on, the petitioner filed a petition under order 1, rule 10(1) of the CPC in the said title suit for incorporating said Shami Ahmed as defendant on 23.07.2016. Defendant respondent no. 7 also filed a petition under order 1 rule 10(2) of the CPC for deletion of name of defendant no. 8 from Title Suit No. 103 of 1995 on 29.01.2016 and both the aforesaid petitions dated 29.01.2016 and 23.07.2016 were heard together and a common order dated 10.12.2018 was passed. It was pleaded by the defendant no. 7 in his reply that since he had already purchased the share of Shami Ahmed vide registered deed dated 10.06.1988 much before filing of the suit, he was not required to be arrayed as a defendant in the suit. In support of his contention, he also filed a copy of the order dated 08.07.2003 passed in Misc. Case No.2 of 2002 wherein it was stated that one Shami Ahmed had already sold his share to defendant no. 7.
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.198 of 2019 dt.04-04-2019 4/4
Constitution of India.
(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J)
kanchan/-
| AFR/NAFR | NAFR |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | NA |
| Uploading Date | 09.04.2019 |
| Transmission Date |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the lower court's finding that Shami Ahmed was neither a necessary nor a proper party in the title suit under Article 227.
Whether the dismissal of the petition under Order 1 Rule 10(1) CPC for impleading Shami Ahmed as defendant was perverse.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sunayana Devi
Kavita Devi
Kunwar Nireen Bhushan
Kunwar Mani Bhushan
Sawan Pratap Singh
Tribhuwan Singh
Ashwani Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
