In a civil miscellaneous application, the High Court of Patna allowed the setting aside of an order that added an intervener as a defendant in a land encroachment suit, ruling that the intervener was not a necessary party.
Application to set aside the order adding the intervener as a defendant was allowed.
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.1603 of 2017
======================================================
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nagendra Rai For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sajid Salim Khan -Sc25 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 21-09-2023 Heard the parties.
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1603 of 2017(3) dt.21-09-2023 2/2
the court below and in the suit also the State was not taking any interest and the case has proceeded ex-parte against the State.
Government Pleader will prosecute the case.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
Ranjeet/-
U
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an intervener is a necessary or proper party in land encroachment proceedings.
Whether the order adding the intervener as a defendant should be set aside.
Daya Nand Tiwary and Others
Satyadeo Tiwary
The State of Bihar
The Collector, Saran
The Circle Officer, Maker Circle
Sandeep Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
