Dinesh Kumar Paswan vs Md. Sarif
2025 Latest Caselaw 2415 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Dinesh Kumar Paswan vs Md. Sarif on 5 February, 2025

Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                       F. A. No. 25 of 2024

       Dinesh Kumar Paswan                   ...     ...    Appellant
                          Versus
       Md. Sarif                        ...      ...       Respondent
                          ---

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Appellant : Mr. Bibhash Sinha, Advocate For the intervener : Mr. Chatur Prasad Singh, Advocate : Mr. Jitesh Kumar, Advocate

---

09/05.02.2025

1. The learned counsel for the appellant has commenced his arguments.

2. Inspite of issuance of notice, nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent. However, an intervention application has been filed.

3. The matter arises out of a plaint seeking specific performance of contract. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the trial court ought to have been framed issue inspite of the fact that the proceeding was ex-parte but needful has not been done by the learned trial court and the case has been decided on the basis of evidences but without framing issue. He has in particular referred to Order XIV Rule 7 of CPC.

4. The learned counsel for the intervener has submitted that the intervener is the real owner of the property and therefore, they are necessary parties. He has submitted that the intervention application was rejected by the learned trial court against which a C.M.P. No. 393 of 2022 was filed but during the pendency of the said C.M.P. the suit was dismissed and consequently the said C.M.P. was dismissed as not pressed. The learned counsel has submitted that the first appeal is a continuation of the suit and therefore, he has again filed a petition seeking intervention.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant has opposed the prayer. However, no counter affidavit as such has been filed to the intervener application.

6. This Court is of the considered view that the question of intervention would be relevant if this Court is inclined to interfere with the judgment impugned.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he shall place judgments to the effect as to how the trial court has to proceed in a case where the proceeding is ex-parte He submits that he would find and place judgements with reference to the suit for specific performance of contract. This assumes relevance in view of the fact that which is ultimately the satisfaction of the court who may have to execute the sale deed is required to be considered.

8. Post this case on 19th February, 2025 at 02:15 PM for further hearing.

9. In the meantime, the appellant may file response to the interlocutory application much prior to the next date.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Rakesh/-