Allowed

Baijnath Singh v. Sanjay Kumar Singh

Patna HC4 Oct 2023C.Misc./660/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil Miscellaneous application filed by petitioners to quash an order of the Sub-Judge, Rohtas, in a title suit. The High Court allowed the application relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited.

What did the court decide?

Petition dated 12.09.2022 stayed quashed order dated 27.03.2023 passed in Title Suit No. 319 of 2017 by Sub-Judge V, Rohtas.

Baijnath Singh Vs Sanjay Kumar Singh — Partition | Patna HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.660 of 2023

¶2

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

¶3

Baijnath Singh Son of Late Subedar Singh, Resident of Village - Amari, P.O. - Karvandiya, P.S. Sasaram (Mufassil), District - Rohtas (Sasaram).

¶4

Shailesh Kumar, Son of Late Ram Bahadur Singh, Resident of Village - Amari, P.O. - Karvandiya, P.S. Sasaram (Mufassil), District - Rohtas (Sasaram).

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

Sanjay Kumar Singh Son of Khakhanu Singh, Resident of Village - Khudhanu, P.S. Agarer, District - Rohtas (Sasaram).

¶8

Mananjay Singh, Son of Khakhanu Singh, Resident of Village - Khudhanu, P.S. Agarer, District - Rohtas (Sasaram).

¶9

Sunil Kumar Singh, Son of Khakhanu Singh, Resident of Village - Khudhanu, P.S. Agarer, District - Rohtas (Sasaram).

¶10

Rajiya Bibi, Wife of Dukhi Sah, D/o Usman Sah, Resident of village- Amari, P.O. - Karvandiya, District- Rohtas (Sasaram). At present residing at village - Khadauli, P.O. and P.S.- Chenari, District- Rohtas (Sasaram).

¶11

... ... Respondent/s

¶12

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ashok Kumar Garg For the Respondent/s : Mr.Babu Nandan Prasad ======================================================

¶13

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER

¶14

2 04-10-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents.

¶15

This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 27.03.2023 passed by learned Sub-Judge V, Rohtas at Sasaram in Title Suit No. 319 of 2017.

¶16

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that he has appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 01 and he has also got Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent Nos. 02 and 03. He is permitted to file Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent

¶17

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.660 of 2023(2) dt.04-10-2023 2/2

¶18

Nos. 02 and 03.

¶19

The amendment sought for by the petitioners is only a subsequent event of dispossession and it does not change the nature of the suit.

¶20

In view of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another AIR 2022 SCC

¶21

4256, this application is allowed.

¶22

Accordingly, the petition dated 12.09.2022 is hereby allowed.

¶23

(Sandeep Kumar, J)

¶24

Vikas/-

¶25

Baijnath Singh v. Sanjay Kumar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baijnath Singh v. Sanjay Kumar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Birendra Mishra Vs Dewanti Devi and Ors.

Sima Devi Vs Sanjay Kumar and Ors.

Prabhat Kumar Sahu @ Prabhat Sahu Vs Zareen Rahman

Ram Sagar Singh Vs Rambir Singh

Md. Salahuddin Vs Sajda Khatoon

Nababul Husain @ Nababul Sai Vs Rahul Uchhay Vidhayalay Sah Inter College Balia and Ors.