Saiful Islam vs Nirmal Kedia
2025 Latest Caselaw 4998 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Saiful Islam vs Nirmal Kedia on 21 April, 2025

                                                           2025:JHHC:11736



    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                      Civil Revision No.65 of 2018

    1. Saiful Islam, aged about 46 years,
    2. Aminul Islam, aged about 44 years,
    3. Ajmal Hussain, aged about 37 years,
       All sons of Late Md. Yusuf.
    4. Md. Moinuddin, aged about 73 years,
    5. Md. Sayeed, aged about 65 years,
       All sons of Late Sk Amir Mohammad.
       All R/o Mohalla Kashim Bazar, Rajmahal, P.O. & P.S. Rajmahal,
       Distt. Sahibganj.
                                               ...     Petitioners
                                  Versus
    1. Nirmal Kedia, S/o Late Baijnath Kedia
    2. Piyush Kedia, S/o Nirmal Kedia
       Both residents of 29/N, Block-B, New Alipur, P.O. & P.S. New
       Alipore Kolkata - 700 053
                                    ... Respondents/Defendants 1st Party

3. Smt. Nirmala Devi, W/o Rajendra Pd. Gupta

4. Smt. Bina Devi, W/o Dilip Kumar Gupta Both R/o Mohalla Kashim Bazar, Rajmahal, P.O. & P.S. Rajmahal, Distt. Sahibganj.

5. Sri Sahayak Bhattacharya, S/o Sri Biswanath Bhattacharya R/o 88C/88E Babu Ghosh Road, P.O. & P.S. Regent Park Kolkata - 700 040 (W.B.)

6. Smt. Indu Tiwari, W/o Sri Chandra Mohan Tiwari, R/o 149A Despara Road, P.O. & P.S. Thakurpukur Kolkata - 700 063 (W.B.) ... Respondents/Defendants 2nd Party

Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

For the Petitioners : Mr. Gautam Kr. Singh, Adv. For the O.P. No.3 : Mr. Jay Prakash Jha, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Aishwarya Prakash, Adv.

Order No.15/Dated- 21.04.2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners on admission of the civil revision.

2. The instant Civil Revision is directed against the order passed in O.S. No.44 of 2007 by Civil Judge Senior Division-I, Rajmahal dated 31.07.2018, whereby and whereunder, the petitioners were directed to file the suit in a competent Court and the plaint of the petitioners has been returned after hearing of the suit and considering relevant rules and regulations application in the case.

2025:JHHC:11736

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners prays for admission of this revision for hearing on merits.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties has raised serious objection pointing towards the provision of Order XLIII Rule 1(a) of the C.P.C., wherein it is specifically provided that the appropriate remedy is available by filing appeal before proper Forum and this revision is not maintainable here.

5. I have gone through the relevant provisions and it appears that the impugned order is not revisable one rather there is specific provision for filing appeal before the competent Court where appeal lies in case of judgment passed by the concerned Trial Court with a direction to file the suit in a competent Court. The petitioners have chosen wrong Forum and wrong proceeding by filing this civil revision which is non-maintainable. Therefore, this civil revision is dismissed as not maintainable with liberty to the petitioners to file appropriate appeal before the proper Forum, if so advised.

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

Sachin