The Patna High Court dismissed an appeal by impleaded parties challenging an interim order that restrained them from changing the nature of disputed land pending a main civil matter. The court held objections regarding notice and impleadment were not entertainable.
The appeal was dismissed as it had no merit.
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 Letters Patent Appeal No.267 of 2019
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Patna High Court L.P.A No.267 of 2019 dt.29-11-2022 2/4
... ... Respondent/s
Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Natraj Verma, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Dwivedi, Advocate
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR)
Date : 29-11-2022
Heard Mr. Natraj Verma, the learned Advocate
for the appellants and Mr. Shailendra Kumar Dwivedi for the State.
The appellants have challenged the interim order dated 27.11.2018 passed in Interlocutory Application No. 5854 of 2018 in C.W.J.C. No.11483 of 2017, which is still pending consideration before the learned Single Judge.
The writ-petitioner had filed interlocutory application (I.A. No. 5854 of 2018) for a direction to the respondents and others not to disturb the possession of the writ-petitioner over the disputed land. While hearing the afore-noted interlocutory application, the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.267 of 2019 dt.29-11-2022 3/4
appellants herein were directed to be impleaded as party-respondents and notice was also issued to them.
As an interim measure, the respondents, including the newly-added respondents (the appellants herein) were restrained from changing the nature of the property.
The first objection of the appellants is that such interim order, preventing them from changing the nature of property has been passed behind their back.
The other/ancillary objection to the order is with respect to their impleadment without there being any written application for the same.
Both the objections are not entertainable at this stage in this appeal for the reason that in appropriate/ emergent cases, such interim orders are passed, which cannot be discountenanced. Notice has already been
issued for them to contest the main writ petition.
Impleadment of the appellants at the instance of the writ petitioner is not impermissible.
The appellants would have ample opportunity to
Patna High Court L.P.A No.267 of 2019 dt.29-11-2022 4/4
demonstrate their rights over the said property, if at all
they have.
There is no merit in this appeal, which is thus
dismissed.
(Ashutosh Kumar, J)
(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J)
HR/-Mahesh
| AFR/NAFR | NAFR |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | N/A |
| Uploading Date | 01.12.2022 |
| Transmission Date | N/A |
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an interim order passed ex parte preventing disturbance of possession is challengeable by newly impleaded parties.
Whether impleadment of appellants without their written application in the main writ petition is impermissible.
Whether restraint orders under land revenue matters preventing change of property nature can be set aside during pending litigation.
Sanjay Kumar Nirala and others
Rita Patel and others
Ashutosh Kumar
Nawneet Kumar Pandey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
