Defendants challenged rejection of their Order VII Rule 11 CPC application in a title partition suit via civil revision and Section 151 recall petition. The High Court affirmed the trial court's order, holding res judicata and limitation were mixed questions unfit for preliminary decision, and dismissed both petitions.
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.1317 of 2017
======================================================
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CIVIL REVISION No. 128 of 2017
======================================================
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Respondent/s
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1317 of 2017 dt.05-09-2024 2/5
For the Respondent/s : Mr. ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 05-09-2024
Civil Revision No. 128 of 2017
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1317 of 2017 dt.05-09-2024 3/5
subsequent partition was barred as the plaintiffs suppressed this material facts. Further, there is no cause of action between the parties inasmuch as there is no unity of title and possession between the parties, which is condition precedent for maintainability of a partition suit. The learned counsel further submits that the suit is also barred under the Limitation Act as the defendants have got the land mutated in their favour and had been paying the rent to the State and this fact was known to the plaintiffs and their ancestors since beginning.
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1317 of 2017 dt.05-09-2024 4/5
find any illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order and hence, the same is affirmed.
also stands disposed of.
Civil Misc. No.1317 of 2017
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1317 of 2017 dt.05-09-2024 5/5
certainly uncalled for and the petitioners have already taken recourse to the option of filing civil revision albeit unsuccessful as Civil Revision No.128 of 2017 filed against that order dated
29.08.2016 has been dismissed by this Court.
the instant petition does not survive for consideration and, hence, the same is dismissed.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
V.K.Pandey/-
| AFR/NAFR | NAFR |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | NA |
| Uploading Date | 09.09.2024 |
| Transmission Date | NA |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court rightly rejected the defendants' Order VII Rule 11 CPC petition challenging maintainability of a partition suit on grounds of prior partition, res judicata and limitation.
Whether a Section 151 CPC petition lies to recall an order rejecting an Order VII Rule 11 CPC application, or only revision.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Vijay Kumar Dubey
Ajay Kumar Dubey
Shailesh Kumar Dubey
Amit Kumar Dubey
Shatrughan Prasad Tiwari
Dhananjay Prasad Tiwari
Arun Kumar Jha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
