Sanu vs Shiv Shankar Gupta
2025 Latest Caselaw 1383 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Sanu vs Shiv Shankar Gupta on 6 January, 2025

Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                           C.M.P. No. 998 of 2023
                        Sanu, aged about 30 years, son of Prabhu Shankar Mishra, resident of
                        Chandra Bhawan, Assam Access Road, Matha Bandh Lane, Opposite
                        Baidhyanath Sangeetalaya, P.O. & P.S. Deoghar Town, District-
                        Deoghar                                         ... Petitioner
                                                -Versus-
                 1.     Shiv Shankar Gupta, son of Late Girdhari Lal Sah
                 2.     Bharti Nandan, son of Late Girdhari Lal Sah
                 3.     Preeti Rani, wife of Shiv Shankar Gupta
                        All resident of Parvati Handloom, S.B. Ray Road, Opposite Bhagwan
                        Hotel, P.O. & P.S. Deoghar Town, District- Deoghar
                                                                        ... Opposite Parties
                                                  -----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

-----

                For the Petitioner          : Mr. Ankit Kumar, Advocate
                For O.P. No.3               : Mr. Lalit Yadav, Advocate
                                                   -----
14/06.01.2025            Heard Mr. Ankit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lalit

Yadav, learned counsel for opposite party no.3.

2. Notices upon opposite party nos. 1 and 2 have been effected,

however, nobody has appeared on behalf of opposite party nos. 1 and 2.

3. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India for quashing the order dated 12.06.2023 passed by the learned Civil

Judge (Sr. Division)-III, Deoghar arising out of Original Suit No.174 of 2019,

whereby, the Misc. Civil Application being M.C.A. No.63 of 2023 dated

08.02.2023 filed by defendant no.3 under Order I Rule 10 of C.P.C. for

impleadment in the suit has been allowed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said order is not in

accordance with law as newly added defendant no.3 is having no right and

in spite of that, the learned Court has allowed the impleadment petition. He

further submits that the suit was instituted for specific performance and the

agreement was between the petitioner and respondent nos. 1 and 2. He

also submits that respondent nos. 1 and 2 have earlier appeared and later

on they were not appearing in the suit and, thereafter, the wife of

respondent no.1 has filed impleadment petition, which was allowed and she

was directed to be made defendant no.3. He submits that the learned Court

on erroneous ground has passed the said order and in view of that, the said

order may kindly be quashed.

5. Learned counsel for opposite party no.3 opposed the prayer and

submits that newly added defendant no.3 is a necessary party and she is

the wife of respondent no.1. He further submits that the learned Court has

rightly passed the order.

6. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the

parties, the Court has gone through the impugned order dated 12.06.2023

and finds that the learned Court has relied upon several judgments of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court and has rightly held that if any person is not

appearing and he is trace less, he can be said to be dead after 7 years and

for that also, the suit is required to be filed for declaration of civil death by

way of filing appropriate petition in the competent Court of civil jurisdiction.

It has been pointed out that newly added defendant no.3 is the wife of

respondent no.1 and the agreement was done between the petitioner and

respondent no.1. If such a situation is there, the learned Court has rightly

passed the order.

7. In view of the above facts, there is no illegality in the impugned order

and, as such, this petition is, hereby, dismissed.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Ajay/