The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... vs Krishna Singh @ Dr. Sri Krishna ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2899 Jhar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                   S.A. No. 94 of 2019
                                ------

The State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad & Anr. .... .... .... Appellants Versus Krishna Singh @ Dr. Sri Krishna Singh & Ors.

.... .... .... Respondents

------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

------

For the Appellants : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Tiwari, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, Advocate : Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Shailesh, Advocate : Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate For the Intervener : Mr. Sidharth Sudhanshu, Advocate

------

Order No.10 Dated- 16.08.2023 I.A. No.3620 of 2021 Learned counsel for the intervener- Kumari Ratnakar submits that this interlocutory application has been filed with a prayer to implead the intervener as respondent no.39 to this second appeal.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the intervener that the appellants have filed this appeal for setting aside the order dated 03.01.2019 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Dhanbad in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 17 of 2018. The intervener has also filed a second appeal being Second Appeal No. 99 of 2019 challenging the said order. It is next submitted that respondent-Krishna Singh @ Dr. Sri. Krishna Singh has intentionally not made the intervener as party in the present appeal and he did not even make the intervener a party before the court below hence, the intervener has no knowledge about the passing of the order impugned in this second appeal. It is next submitted that the intervener has purchased the suit land through two sale deeds from two different persons and the copy of the sale deeds has been annexed to this interlocutory application. It is next submitted that the intervener has also purchased another land which is also the subject matter of the present appeal and the intervener has constructed house on the land purchased by her. It is next submitted that there is dispute between the intervener and the respondent-Krishna Singh @ Dr. Sri. Krishna Singh hence, the intervener has filed Title Suit No. 201 of 2018. It is next submitted that vendor of the intervener and others have also filed Title Suit against the respondent-Krishna Singh @ Dr. Sri. Krishna Singh and another bearing Title Suit No. 119 of 2014. The respondent-Krishna Singh @ Dr. Sri. Krishna Singh is making a claim in respect of the suit land on the basis of the forged and fabricated sale deed. It is then submitted that the intervener has right, title and interest over the land in question which is subject matter of the dispute involved in this appeal and by suppressing material facts and playing fraud upon the Court, the respondent has so far succeeded from keeping the intervener out from the legal proceeding in respect of the suit land. The intervener is ready and willing to abide by the judgment to be ultimately passed in this second appeal. Hence, it is submitted that the intervener be impleaded as respondent no.39.

Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 on the other hand opposes to implead the intervener as respondent no.39. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 that Second Appeal No. 99 of 2019 is not maintainable as the intervener was not a party before the Revenue Officer in Case No. 18 of 2011 or before the Principal District Judge, Dhanbad in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 17 of 2018 but it is fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 that the intervener has purchased part of the suit land but the said part of the suit land purchased by the intervener has nothing to do with the land purchased by the respondent no.1. It is then submitted that the police during investigation of Barwadda P.S. Case No. 33 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. No. 808 of 2017 have found that the respondent no.1 who purchased the land in question while he was a minor is correct and true. Hence, it is submitted that this interlocutory application being without any merit be dismissed.

Though the appellant-State prayed for time to file counter affidavit but no counter affidavit has been filed by the appellant.

Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, the fact remains undisputed that the intervener has purchased the part of the suit property and will be affected by the ultimate judgment that will be passed in this second appeal. The intervener undertakes to abide by the judgment passed in this appeal.

Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the intervener be impleaded as respondent no.39.

Accordingly, the prayer is allowed.

Registry is directed to incorporate the names, parentage and addresses of the said intervener as respondent no.39 in the cause title of the appeal memo with red ink.

Mr. Abhay Prakash, Advocate and Associates have filed power on behalf of the intervener and Mr. Sidharth Sudhanshu, Advocate receives notice in the appeal on behalf of the respondent no.39.

This interlocutory application is disposed of accordingly.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) I.A. No. 7302 of 2023 Heard the parties.

Learned counsel for the respondent no.26 submits that the copy of this interlocutory application has not been served upon.

Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 submits that the respondent no.1 will serve the copy of this interlocutory application upon the respondent no.26 within a week and files the proof of the same within a week, failing which, this interlocutory application shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Bench.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) S.A. No. 94 of 2019

Notice issued to the respondent nos.27 and 31 has returned with the report that the respondent nos.27 and 31 has died since long but no prayer for substitution has been made as yet.

Accordingly, this appeal abates against the respondent nos.27 and 31.

Notice issued to the respondent nos. 33 and 34 has not been validly served as the said respondents are not residing in the address mentioned in the notice.

Issue fresh notice to respondent nos. 33 and 34 in correct and present address.

The appellants are directed to file fresh requisites for service of notice on the respondent nos. 33 and 34 in correct and present address by registered post with A/D as well as under ordinary process within four weeks failing which; this appeal shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Bench.

Rule is made returnable within six weeks.

List this appeal after receipt of the service report of the notice issued to the respondent nos. nos. 33 and 34.

Sonu-Gunjan/-                         (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)