Akhileshwar Prasad Yadav & ... vs Puspa Devi & Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 2174 Jhar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                (Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
               W.P. (C) No. 7400 of 2019
                       ........

Akhileshwar Prasad Yadav & Another.... ..... Petitioner Versus Puspa Devi & Others .... ..... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO ............

For the Petitioners : Mr. Sanjay Prasad, Advocate.

Mr. Kamdeo Pandey, Advocate.

For the Respondents                    :
                                           ........
07/13.06.2022.

Heard, learned counsel, Mr. Sanjay Prasad assisted by learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Kamdeo Pandey.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted, that petitioners have preferred this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 20.09.2019 passed by District Judge-VIII, Giridih in Civil Appeal No. 66/2017, whereby the learned District Judge-VIII has rejected the petition dated 17.01.2019 filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 151 C.P.C. with regard to measurement of the land of Plot No. 1357 and 1358 by the Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner on the ground that land of Plot No. 1357 and 1358 were merged into land of Plot No. 1361.

When this Court has asked the petitioners, whether the suit of the plaintiff was decreed or dismissed, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted, that the suit has been dismissed.

This Court has asked the counsel for the petitioners to produce the copy of the judgment, but learned counsel for the petitioners has provided copy of the plaint, where a right, title and interest over the suit property has been prayed for.

It appears that when the prayer for right, title and interest of the plaintiff over the suit land has been dismissed, it is not required that the Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner should measure the land of Plot Nos. 1357 and 1358, as the prayer made by the plaintiff / petitioner is erroneous.

Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition is hereby dismissed.

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Sunil/-