Jharkhand High Court
Chhota Bhim Marandi vs Dhena Marandi on 25 August, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
2025:JHHC:25219
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
C.M.P. No. 276 of 2025
------
Chhota Bhim Marandi, son of Late Hadma Marandi, resident of Village
Baccha, P.O. & P.S. Mirzachowki, District Sahibganj
.... .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. Dhena Marandi
2. Tala Marandi
Both sons of Late Bhima Marandi, resident of Village Baccha, P.O. & P.S.
Mirzachowki, District Sahibganj
.... .... .... Opposite Parties
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashish Gautam, Advocate
For the Opp. Parties :
Order No.10 / Dated : 25.08.2025
Instant civil miscellaneous petition has been filed by the defendant
under Article 227 of the Constitution to set aside the order dated 19.08.2024
passed in Civil Misc. Appeal No.3/2019 by which the order dated 12.04.2019
passed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC read with Section
107(2) of the CPC, has been affirmed by the learned first appellate Court.
2. Plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of suit property to be joint and
undivided, with a prayer for partition of the said property.
3. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed vide judgment dated
22.06.2017. The judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court were
set aside in Civil Appeal No.17/2017 by the learned first appellate Court on
26.04.2018. After the dismissal of the suit in appeal, learned trial Court re-
opened the Title (Partition) Suit No.30/2013 and decided Issue No.V by
passing the impugned order dated 18.07.2018.
4. This issue was decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the
contesting defendant.
5. Petitioner moved before the trial Court to recall the order dated
12.04.2019 which was rejected, consequently, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
No.3/2019 was filed, which was dismissed. Aggrieved by it, instant civil
miscellaneous petition has been filed.
6. The main contention of the petitioner is that after having delivered
the judgment on 22.06.2017 in Title (Partition) Suit No.30/2013, the trial
Court had become functus officio and could not have re-entered into
2025:JHHC:25219
adjudication of the matter, unless the appellate Court had remanded the
matter to the trial Court.
7. Notices were earlier issued to the opposite parties, which were duly
served, but none have appeared.
8. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the
petitioner and on perusal of the materials on record, the impugned orders
defies any logic or sense.
9. Indisputably, the decision of the first appellate court by the
judgment dated 26th April, 2018 dismissing the suit had attained finality. By
this order, the judgment and decree passed by the trial court in favour of the
plaintiff/opposite parties was set aside. Further, no order of remand was
passed.
10. Thus, the trial Court was denuded of any jurisdiction to revisit its
earlier judgment and decree in the teeth of the order passed in appeal. It
was not open to the trial Court to have re-opened the partition suit and
decided Issue No.V.
11. It is rather very strange that learned trial court entered into
adjudication in the partition suit after the judgment and decree were set
aside by the first appellate court that too when the matter was not even
remanded to the trial Court. Under the circumstance, impugned order is set
aside.
Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. Interlocutory Application, if
any, is disposed of.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Anit
