Jharkhand High Court
Chetlal Ravidas & Ors vs The State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 11 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No.2442 of 2019
Chetlal Ravidas & Ors. ... ... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ... ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
For the Petitioners :- Mr. Shashi Kumar Verma, Advocate
For the State :- Mr. Om Prakash Tewari, G.P.-III
09/11.01.2021 The present case is taken up through video conferencing.
A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos.
4, 5 and 6 annexing a copy of order passed by this Court in Appeal from
Original Decree No. 68 of 1982(R) (Annexure-A to the counter
affidavit), the exact date of which is not clear from the said annexure
however, it appears that the said order was passed in the month of
September, 1994. The relevant part of the order is quoted hereunder :
"40. The learned court below, therefore, in my opinion has also
failed to frame the following issues which were absolutely
necessary for the just and proper determination of the suit.
A. Whether old khata no. 6 had been sub-divided into
new khata nos. 2, 14, 16, 17 and 20?
B. Whether in view of the pleadings of the parties as
also the evidence brought on records, the lands
appertaining to khata no. 2, if the same is a part
of old khata no. 6 has wrongly been recorded in
the name of Jagarnath Singh by reasons of clerical
error in place of Jagarnath Sahay?
C. In the event, if it be held that Jagarnath Sahay had
title in respect of the land appertaining to old khata
no. 06, in view of exhibits 8, 11, 9 and 10, whether
the defendant nos. 3 to 9; 10 to 11 and 12 to 17
and defendant no. 1 have acquired any title in
respect of or any portion of the lands appertaining
to new khata nos. 14, 16, 17 and 20 respectively?
The learned court below shall also determine afresh the finding
of fact arrived by it that Sonphul did not acquire any right, title
and interest in terms of Ext. 15, Ext. 7/7 in view of the fact that
now the plaintiffs have proved the original sale deed executed by
Jagarnath Sahay in favour of Sonphul Devi.
41. The learned trial court shall allow the parties to adduce
further evidence on the issues framed hereinbefore and apart
from the aforementioned issues shall determine the question of
fact as has specifically mentioned hereinbefore and thereafter it,
upon trying such issues and determining the aforementioned
questions of fact afresh return the evidences to this Court
together with findings thereon and the reasons therefor within
the four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
42. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the matter
is remanded back to the learned court below. Let the lower court
record be sent down forthwith."
It thus appears that the Appeal from Original Decree No. 68 of
1982 (R) was not finally disposed of by this Court vide said order.
Subsequently, the learned Sub-Judge-II, Hazaribag, vide order dated
15.01.2008 tried T.S. No. 78 of 1977 (a copy of which has been
annexed as Anneuxre-1 to the writ petition) as per the additional issues
framed by the High Court. It is however not clear as to whether the
said order dated 15.01.2008 along with records of T.S. No. 78 of 1977
were thereafter referred to the High Court for proceeding further in the
Appeal from Original Decree No. 68 of 1982 (R).
Hence, the petitioners are directed to file supplementary affidavit
clearly specifying as to whether the Appeal from Original Decree No. 68
of 1982 (R) has thereafter been taken up and disposed of by this Court.
If so, a copy of the judgment passed therein be annexed with the said
supplementary counter affidavit.
Put up this case after eight weeks under the heading "For
Admission".
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
Ritesh
