Disposed¶36

Ratan Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC2 Sept 2024CWJC/12760/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Partition suit; status quo order 12.04.2019; sale deeds executed despite injunction; enforcement of injunction Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC; alternative statutory remedy vs writ route; Article 226 Patna High Court; Civil Judge (Senior Division) Vaishali at Hajipur; respondent no.14 Abhishek Kumar; writ disposed with liberty to approach civil court; expeditious disposal directive.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to approach the competent civil court (seised of Partition Suit No. 1260 of 2017) to pursue the statutory remedy under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Civil Procedure Code; permission also accorded to correct paras 1 and 8 of the writ petition. ¶36

Ratan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Writ and Judicial Review | Patna HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether, under Article 226, this Court should direct the respondent authorities to restrain execution of any sale deed during the pendency of Partition Suit No. 1260 of 2017 pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Vaishali at Hajipur, in view of the status quo order passed on 12.04.2019.

¶30

Court's answer

Considering the nature of the grievance and the existence of the already-passed injunction (status quo) order, the petitioners' appropriate remedy is the statutory remedy under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Civil Procedure Code rather than relief through this Court.

¶35

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to approach the competent civil court seized of the matter.

¶36

Key takeaways

On filing of such petition, the learned civil court shall consider the matter and dispose of the same expeditiously, in accordance with law.obiter¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

PATNA HIGH COURT | CWJC No.12760 of 2024 | dt. 02-09-2024 | Harish Kumar, J | NAFR. Petitioners (sons of Late Gayaneshwar Chaudhary) invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction upon respondent authorities to restrain execution of any sale deed during the pendency of Partition Suit No. 1260 of 2017 pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Vaishali at Hajipur, in view of the status quo order dated 12.04.2019, alleging that private respondent no.14 (Abhishek Kumar) executed various sale deeds in a collusive manner despite the injunction. Finding an injunction order already in place, the Court held that the petitioners have an appropriate and statutory remedy under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Civil Procedure Code, disposed of the writ petition with liberty to approach the competent civil court in seisin of the matter, and observed that the learned court shall consider and dispose of such petition expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12760 of 2024

¶2

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

¶3

Ratan Kumar, Son of Late Gayaneshwar Chaudhary, Resident of Sadapur, Mahua, P.O. and P.S.-Mahua, Distirct- Vaishali.

¶4

Rajesh Kumar, Son of Late Gayaneshwar Chaudhary, Resident of Sadapur, Mahua, P.O. and P.S.-Mahua, Distirct- Vaishali.

¶5

Rajeev Kumar, Son of Late Gayaneshwar Chaudhary, Resident of Sadapur, Mahua, P.O. and P.S.-Mahua, Distirct- Vaishali.

¶6

... ... Petitioner/s

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Bihar through the Collector Vaishali at Hajipur.

¶9

The Collector Cum District Magistrate Vaishali at Hajipur.

¶10

The Registrar District Registry Office, Vaishali at Hajipur.

¶11

The Circle Officer Mahua Block, Vaishali at Hajipur.

¶12

Amar Nath Chaudhary Son of Late Ajablal Chaudhary Resident of VillageSadapur Mahua, P.S. and P.O. Mahua District-Vaishali.

¶13

Hardutt Chaudhary Son of Amarnath Chaudhary Resident of VillageSadapur Mahua, P.S. and P.O. Mahua District-Vaishali.

¶14

Shiv Dutt Chaudhary Son of Amarnath Chaudhary Resident of VillageSadapur Mahua, P.S. and P.O. Mahua District-Vaishali.

¶15

Dai Dutt Chaudhary Son of Amarnath Chaudhary Resident of VillageSadapur Mahua, P.S. and P.O. Mahua District-Vaishali.

¶16

Rikku Dutt Chaudhary Son of Amarnath Chaudhary Resident of VillageSadapur Mahua, P.S. and P.O. Mahua District-Vaishali.

¶17

Vinnue Chaudhary Daughter of Amarnath Chaudhary Resident of VillageSadapur Mahua, P.S. and P.O. Mahua District-Vaishali.

¶18

Kumud Devi Daughter of Amarnath Chaudhary Resident of Village-Sadapur Mahua, P.S. and P.O. Mahua District-Vaishali.

¶19

Gitanjali Devi Daughter of Amarnath Chaudhary Resident of VillageSadapur Mahua, P.S. and P.O. Mahua District-Vaishali.

¶20

Chandra Kala Devi D/o Ajablal Chaudhary Resident of Village-Sadapur Mahua, P.S. and P.O. Mahua District-Vaishali.

¶21

Abhishek Kumar Son of Gajendar Jaiswal Resident of Village-Sadapur Mahua, P.S. and P.O. Mahua District-Vaishali.

¶22

... ... Respondent/s

¶23

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

¶24

Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :	Mr. Ratan Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : ===================	Mr. Sheo Shankar Prasad, SC- 8 ===================================
CORAM: HONOURABL ORAL JUDGMENT	E MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR

¶25

Patna High Court CWJC No.12760 of 2024 dt.02-09-2024 2/3

¶26

Date : 02-09-2024

¶27

Learned Advocate for the petitioners seeks permission to make necessary correction in para. 1 and 8 of the writ petition, during course of the day.

¶28

Permission is accorded.

¶29

Heard Mr. Ratan Kumar Sinha, learned Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Sheo Shankar Prasad, learned Advocate for the State.

¶30

The petitioners by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction upon the respondent authorities to restrain from executing any sale deed during the pendency of the Partition Suit No. 1260 of 2017, pending in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Vaishali at Hajipur in view of the status quo passed by the learned court, who is in sesin of the case, on 12.04.2019.

¶31

From the materials available on record, it appears that a partition suit has been filed way back in the year 2017, being Partition Suit No. 1260 of 2017, with respect to certain land, in question. The court having found, prima facie, case directed to maintain status quo vide order dated 12.04.2019.

¶32

It is the case of the petitioners that despite the

¶33

Patna High Court CWJC No.12760 of 2024 dt.02-09-2024 3/3

¶34

order of injunction to maintain status quo, the private respondent no.14 executed various sale deeds in a collusive manner and thus the petitioners having found no way out but to approach this Court.

¶35

7 Considering the nature of the grievance and taking note of the fact that there is already injunction order, the petitioners have appropriate and statutory remedy under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Civil Procedure Code.

¶36

The writ petition stands disposed of with a liberty to the petitioners to approach the competent civil court, who is in sesin of the matter.

¶37

It is needless to observe that on filing of such petition, the learned court shall consider the matter and dispose of the same expeditiously, in accordance with law.

¶38

(Harish Kumar, J)

¶39

uday/-

¶40

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	NA
Uploading Date	04.09.2024
Transmission Date	NA

Ratan Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ratan Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rishu kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Sanjeet Rai Vs The State of Bihar

Mala Kumari Vs The State of Bihar

Munna Chaudhary Vs The State of Bihar

Ayodhya Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Shayam Prasad @ Shayama Prasad Vs The State of Bihar