Mangra Munda vs Birsa Munda
2023 Latest Caselaw 883 Jhar

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                        W.P.(C) No. 5069 of 2018
                1. Mangra Munda
                2. Sukra alias Suku Munda
                3. Kallu Munda
                4. Mannu Munda
                5. Bablu Munda
                6. Vinod Munda                                   -Petitioners
                                          Versus
                1. Birsa Munda
                2. Sheo Shanker Mukherjee
                3. Somson Soya
                4. Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi                   --Respondents
                                          ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

---

                For the Petitioner         : Mr. Birendra Kumar, Adv.
                For the Resp.-State         : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Shahi, Advocate
                For the Pvt.-Respondent     : Mr. Shailesh Kumar, Advocate
                                                 --
12/23.02.2023          Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 27.07.2018 passed in Original Suit no. 409 of 2009 by the Court of Sub- Ordinate Judge-II, Ranchi exercising his power and jurisdiction under Order XVI Rule-20 CPC dismissing the suit itself. The suit has been filed for declaration of title and interest over the suit lands described in Schedule-B & C of the plaint on the basis of inheritance and succession. The plaintiffs have claimed themselves as the legal heirs of the recorded tenant. On that basis the claim has been made.

3. Learned counsel for the other side has already appeared and filed written statement.

4. The issue has been framed on 11.02.2013. After framing of the issue, the plaintiffs had filed the amendment petition for amendment of the plaint, which has been rejected and that rejection order has been challenged by filing writ petition before this Court being W.P.(C) No. 4993 of 2011, which has been decided on 11.07.2018 rejecting the claim of the plaintiffs for amendment in the plaint. It appears that thereafter a time petition has been filed which has been rejected and the petitioners have been asked to produce evidence but on refusal, the impugned order has been passed.

5. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that since the amendment petition was rejected and they were desirous to peruse the order of rejection and as such time petition has been filed. There is a bonafide on the part of the plaintiffs and on that basis prayer for restoration of the suit has been

prayed. Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment dated 6.3.2020 passed in Civil Revision No. 38 of 2018.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayer stating that the conduct of the respondents was not fair and proper. He has adopted the delaying tactic. Once the delaying tactic has been adopted, then the court was right to invoking the jurisdiction available under Order XVI Rule 20 CPC.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that the issues have already been framed and the prayer for amendment of the suit has been dismissed. It is well settled law that plaintiffs should not be debarred from pursuing his suit normally unless and until some extraordinary situation arises

8. Considering the entire gamut of case and the claim of the parties, I am of the opinion that the plaintiffs should be given an opportunity to contest the same. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 27.07.2018 is hereby set aside and the suit is restored to its original file, subject to payment of Rs. 15,000 in favour of Advocate's Association, Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi and Rs. 15,000 to Advocate's Clerk Association, Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi.

9. With the above observations/directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

Pending I.A, if any, stands disposed of.

(Rajesh Kumar, J) Jk/