Dismissed

Hare Ram v. Muni Kumhar

Patna HC14 Feb 2020C.Misc./106/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court dismissed a Civil Miscellaneous application challenging an order rejecting the petitioner's prayer to be added as an intervener. The court held that the petitioner failed to establish title to the land and thus was neither a necessary nor proper party.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as petitioner failed to establish right over the land and was not a necessary or proper party.

Hare Ram Vs Muni Kumhar — Property and Title | Patna HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.106 of 2020

¶2

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

¶3

Hare Ram S/o Late Munna Ram R/o Village-Mohaniya, P.S.-Sheosagar, District-Rohtas

¶4

... ... Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Muni Kumhar S/o Late Shiv Bachan Kumhar, R/o Village-Mohaniya, P.S.Sheosagar, District-Rohtas

¶7

The State of Bihar through the Collector, Rohtas.

¶8

¶9

Anchal Adhikari, Anchal Sheosagar, District-Rohtas.

¶10

Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Sikraul, P.S.-Sheosagar, District-Rohtas.

¶11

... ... Respondents

¶12

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Binod Murari Mishra, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Sajid Salim Khan, SC-25 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 14-02-2020

¶13

The present application has been filed “ against the order dated 15.10.2019 passed in T.S. Case No. 974 of 2017 (C.I.S. No. 974 of 2019) by the learned Sub-Judge IV, Sasaram whereby and whereunder the learned court below has rejected the application of the petitioner filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure to add him as intervener in the T.S. No. 974 of 2017.”

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned court below ought to have allowed his prayer for being impleaded in the suit as he had claimed to be in possession and ownership of the disputed land.

¶15

Learned counsel for the State appears and has been

¶16

heard.

¶17

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.106 of 2020 dt.14-02-2020 2/2

¶18

Having heard the parties and on consideration of the materials on record, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter. A perusal of the impugned order discloses that the petitioner had stated in his application that the land in question is the Sairati land situated in front of his land, denoting that the land in question is public land. No material was brought on record to establish his right over the said land and as such the learned court below has rejected the prayer for impleading the petitioner as he was neither a necessary party nor proper party in the suit.

¶19

This Court therefore finds no illegality, infirmity or error of jurisdiction in the order of the learned court below. The petition stands dismissed

¶20

(Vikash Jain, J)

¶21

Ibrar//-

¶22

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	N.A.
Uploading Date	19.02.2020
Transmission Date	N.A.

Hare Ram v. Muni Kumhar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hare Ram v. Muni Kumhar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satya Narayan Burnwal Vs Smt. Subhadra Devi

Suresh Yadav @ Suresh Rai Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Smt. Chandralata Jha and Anr. Vs Sunil Kumar and Ors.

Deo Kumari Devi Vs Awadh Kishore Singh and Ors.

Braj Naryan Chaudhary @ Brij Narayan Chaudhary Vs Vijay Kumar Pandey

Premlal Ram @ Parmelal Ram and Ors. Vs S K. Akil and Ors.