The Patna High Court dismissing a quashing application held that the trial court committed no illegality in allowing respondents to lead evidence regarding a claim of previous partition in Civil Miscellaneous Jurisdiction No.1812 of 2018.
Petitioner directed to re-start evidence within one month; partition suit to be decided expeditiously.
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.1812 of 2018
======================================================
Bhishm Deo Singh Son of Late Chandradeo Singh, Resident of VillageKadeokhari, P.S. N.T.P.C. Khaira, District- Aurangabad
... ... Petitioner/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER
3 09-10-2023
This application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 02.08.2018 passed by learned Sub-Judge-VII, Aurangabad in Partition Suit No. 133 of 2015 by which learned Judge has allowed the application of the respondents/plaintiffs under Order 18 Rule 1 of C.P.C.
2. The defendant has claimed previous partition and therefore, he has been directed to led evident first on the application filed by the plaintiffs and the same has been allowed.
3. The Court is of the view that there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 02.08.2018 passed by learned SubJudge-VII, Aurangabad in Partition Suit No. 133 of 2015 and hence, this application is dismissed.
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1812 of 2018(3) dt.09-10-2023 2/2
4. Since the present Suit is of 2015, the petitioner is directed to re-start his evidence within one month of receipt/communication of a copy of this order and thereafter, the said partition suit will be decided expeditiously by the Court below preferably within a year of receipt/communication of a copy of this order.
5. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this application is disposed of.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
Harsh/
U
2 issues framed by the court
Whether there was any illegality in the order allowing respondents to lead evidence on their claim of previous partition.
Whether the impugned order in the partition suit was legally sustainable.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Bhishm Deo Singh
Ram Chandra Singh
Lalan Singh
Kumar Om
Sandeep Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
