Jharkhand High Court
Pratima Devi vs Parshuram Tiwari & Ors on 15 June, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No.2502 of 2018
-----
Pratima Devi .......... Petitioner.
-Versus-
Parshuram Tiwari & Ors. .......... Respondents.
-----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Chanchal Jain, Advocate
For the Res. Nos.3 to 5: Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, Advocate
-----
Order No.09 Date: 15.06.2022
Considering the report submitted by the office with respect to
service of notices upon the respondents, it appears that notices issued
to the respondent nos.2, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 have validly been
served, however, no one appears on behalf of the respondent no.2.
So far as the notice issued to the respondent no.1 is concerned,
it has been reported by his grandson that he has died.
Put up this case under the heading "For Admission" on 7th
July, 2022.
I.A. No.4224 of 2022:
The present interlocutory application has been filed on behalf
of the petitioner for deletion of respondent no.1- Parshuram Tiwari
from the cause title of the writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent
no.1 has died during pendency of the writ petition on 8th April, 2020,
leaving behind his heirs/legal representatives, who have already been
arrayed as respondent nos.6 to 10 in the present writ petition. It is
also submitted that the learned court below vide order dated 26th April,
2022 has allowed the petition dated 11th April, 2022 for deleting the
name of the appellant no.1 (respondent no.1 herein), considering the
fact that his heirs/legal representatives are appellant nos.6 to 10
(respondent nos.6 to 10 herein) in Title Appeal No.39 of 2013 and,
accordingly, the name of the appellant no.1 (respondent no.1 herein)
has been deleted from the cause title of the said appeal.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
counsel for the respondent nos.3 to 5 as also keeping in view that
heirs and legal representatives of the respondent no.1 have already
been arrayed as respondent nos.6 to 10, the name of the respondent
no.1 is permitted to be deleted from the cause title of the writ petition.
I.A. No.4224 of 2022 is, accordingly, disposed of.
Necessary correction in the cause title of the writ petition be
made by the counsel for the petitioner in course of day.
I.A. No.4223 of 2022:
The present interlocutory application has been filed on behalf
of the petitioner for staying further proceeding of Title Appeal No.39
of 2013 particularly in view of the fact that the said appeal is at the
stage of final hearing and the same is being regularly heard by learned
District Judge-I, Palamau.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Title Appeal
No.39 of 2013 (Parshuram Tiwari & Ors. Vs. Pratima Devi & Ors.) is
being heard along with Title Appeal No.42 of 2013 (Jay Ram Ojha &
Ors. Vs. Pratima Devi & Ors.), as both the appeals are arising out of a
common judgment and decree dated 29.06.2013 and 12.07.2013
respectively. After the judgment and decree passed in favour of the
plaintiff, she encampused the land in question. After completion of
boundary wall, the plaintiff/petitioner was sure that the land was
protected and there was no chance of encroachment by anyone and
thereafter the plaintiff/petitioner, who is an Engineer in NTPC, posted
at Hazaribagh, was living there with her husband. During pendency of
Title Appeal No.39 of 2013, the respondent nos.1 to 14 herein (the
appellants of Title Appeal No.39 of 2013) with the help of Anamika
Devi (subsequent purchaser) and her muscle men namely, Manoj
Kumar Singh & Prakash Ranjan, forcefully entered the suit property
and started illegal construction over the land in question. The
subsequent development occurred after the decree of the suit and
during the pendency of the appeal, which compelled the
plaintiff/petitioner to seek consequential relief by filing a petition under
Order VI Rule 17 CPC, which was not prayed earlier. The petition for
amendment under Order VI Rule 17 was filed in the year 2014 itself.
On the contrary, Mr. S.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the
respondent nos.3 to 5, submits that the specific stand of the defendant
nos. 4 to 13 in the suit was that the vendor of the suit land - Jashmati
Kuer was never in possession of the eastern and western side of the
land.
Be that as it may. Since the contention of the petitioner is that
she has been dispossessed from part of the suit land after passing of
the decree by the original court and during pendency of the appeal,
this Court is of the view that the rival contention of the parties with
respect to the application filed on behalf of the petitioner under Order
VI Rule 17 CPC at appellate stage requires consideration.
Hence, further proceeding of Title Appeal No.39 of 2013 is
stayed till further order of this Court.
I.A. No.4223 of 2022 stands disposed of.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
Sanjay/
