Suleman Mian vs Md. Siraj @ Serajuddin
2022 Latest Caselaw 5181 Jhar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                      C. M. P. No. 938 of 2022
                            -----

1. Suleman Mian

2. Ismail Mian

3. Md. Salim

4. Inteyaj Mian ... .... Petitioners Versus

1. Md. Siraj @ Serajuddin

2. Bharat Bhushan Agarwal ... .... Opp. Parties

-----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

-----

For the Petitioners : Mr. S.K. Vishwakarma, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Mr. A.K. Singh, Advocate

-----

Oral Order 04 / Dated : 21.12.2022

1. The instant civil misc. petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 19.11.2022 passed in Original Suit No. 119 of 2016 whereby and where under the petition for withdrawal of the suit filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) read with Section 151 of C.P.C. was rejected.

2. The petitioners filed the suit on 09.12.2016 for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land and for declaration of the order passed in Title Appeal No. 09 of 2006 and the registered sale deed dated 15.02.1985 will not be binding. The court below has rejected the civil misc. petition for the reason that the plaintiffs failed to mention any formal defect that the suit suffers for which the withdrawal petition has been filed. It has been merely stated that the suit property has been disposed of during the pendency of the suit by the defendants beyond the area that was allotted to him by the judgment passed in Title Suit No. 54 of 1998 and they failed to explain as to what prejudice would be caused to them if they proceeded with the instant suit and the same could only be remedied upon filing of a fresh suit.

3. The withdrawal petition appears to have been filed for the reason that some part of suit property were disposed of during the pendency of the suit and the petitioner intended to file a fresh suit by impleading the pendent lite purchaser. The sale of the property was beyond the share allotted to the petitioner in title suit no.54 of 1998 which had attained its finality in title appeal no.9 of 2006.

I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The petitioner is, however, at liberty to file appropriate petition before the court below to implead the purchaser in whose favour sale deed has been executed by the defendants beyond their shares.

This Civil Misc. Petition, accordingly, stands disposed of.

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) AKT