Jharkhand High Court
Amarnath Jaiswal vs Birendra Kumar Jaiswal on 2 January, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
C.M.P. No. 810 of 2024
Amarnath Jaiswal, aged about 62 years, son of late Sewalal Jaiswal,
resident of Village-Bundu, P.O. and P.S. Bundu, District-Ranchi,
Jharkhand ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. Birendra Kumar Jaiswal, son of late Badri Narayan Jaiswal,
resident of village Bundu, P.O. and P.S. Bundu, District-Ranchi,
Jharkhand
2. Bishnu Kumar Jaiswal, son of late Badri Narayan Jaiswal
3. Manju Shree Jaiswal, wife of late Santosh Kumar Jaiswal
4. Manoj Kumar Jaiswal
5. Rajiv Kumar Jaiswal
Both sons of late Santosh Kumar Jaiswal,
All residents of village Bundu, P.O. and P.S. Bundu, District-
Ranchi, Jharkhand
6. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, son of late Durga Prasad Sharma
7. Madan Mohan Bhagat, son of late Radha Govind Bhagat
Both residents of village Bundu, P.O. and P.S. Bundu, District-
Ranchi, Jharkhand
...... Respondents
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate
For the Resp. Nos. 6 & 7: Mr. Dilip Kr. Prasad, Advocate
----
05/02.01.2025 Heard Mr. Sandeep Verma, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Dilip Kr. Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent
nos. 6 and 7.
2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 11.07.2022 passed by
the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-XXII, Ranchi in Misc.
Civil Application No. 448 of 2022 (Arising out of Original Suit No.
210/2020) whereby the petition filed by the respondent nos. 6 and 7
under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure for being
impleaded as party defendants, was allowed.
3. Mr. Sandeep Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that respondent nos. 6 and 7 have illegally purchased the said
property by way of registered sale deed and in view of that allowing the
said petition under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of C.P.C. was not correct and in
view of that the this petition has been filed.
4. Mr. Dilip Kr. Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent nos.
6 and 7 submits that respondent no.1 has already left for his heavenly
above in the year, 2013 and against the dead person, this petition has
been filed. He further submits that so far respondent nos. 2 to 4 are
concerned they are supporting the plaintiff and to buttress this argument
he refers to Annexure-1 which is plaint filed by the petitioner.
5. By the impugned order the learned court has been pleased
to allow the petition dated 03.03.2017 filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of
C.P.C. on the ground that respondent nos. 6 and 7 are purchaser of the
some portion of suit property in view of that the said petition was
allowed. It was pointed out by Mr. Dilip Kr. Prasad, learned counsel for
the respondent nos. 6 and 7 that respondent no.1 has already left for his
heavenly abode in the year, 2013 and against the dead person this
petition has been filed.
6. In view of the facts that the respondent nos. 6 and 7 have
purchased some portion of the suit property and learned court allowed
the petition under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of C.P.C. The said order is speaking
order. Learned court has also considered the judgment in the case of
"Thomson Press (India) Limited Vs. Nanak Builders and
Investors Private Limited and others" and other judgments and
thereafter passed the said order. It appears that respondent nos. 2 to 4
are supporting the petitioner. There is no illegality in the said order and
what is the contention of the petitioner can be considered by the learned
court in the pending suit. No case of interference is made out.
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Pending I.A, if any, stands
dismissed.
7. It is open to the parties to take steps for earlier disposal of
the said suit.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J)
Satyarthi
