Jharkhand High Court
Asim Kumar Agarwalla vs Jitendra Kumar Agarwalla And Ors ... ... ... on 24 January, 2025
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Civil Revision No. 28 of 2014
Asim Kumar Agarwalla ... ... Petitioner
Versus
Jitendra Kumar Agarwalla and Ors ... ... Opp. Parties
With
Civil Revision No. 32 of 2014
Devendra Kumar Agarwalla ... ... Petitioner
Versus
Jitendra Kumar Agarwalla and Ors ... ... Opp. Parties
With
Civil Revision No. 14 of 2015
Anup Kumar Agarwalla ... ... Petitioner
Versus
Jitendra Kumar Agarwalla and Ors ... ... Opp. Parties
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sudipto Sarkar, Sr. Advocate
: Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
: Mr. Saurav Agarwal, Advocate
: Mr. Ayush Aggarwala, Advocate
: Mr. Akhil Sachar, Advocate
: Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, Advocate
For the Respondent No.1 : Mr. Rachit Lakhmani, Advocate (through VC)
: Mr. Ananda Basu, Advocate (through VC)
: Mr. Anurag Kumar, Advocate
: Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate (through VC)
: Mrs. Shail Lakra, Advocate
For the Respondent No.10 & 14 : Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, Advocate
For the Respondent Nos.15 & 16 : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate
: Mr. Suman Kumar Ghosh, Advocate
---
th
60/24 January 2025
1. Learned counsel for the parties are present.
2. Mr. Rachit Lakhmani, Mr. Ananda Basu and Mr. Saurabh Shekhar,
Advocates appeared for the respondent no.1 online.
I.A. No. 409 of 2025 in Civil Revision No. 28 of 2014
3. This petition has been filed seeking substitution of respondent No.
13, namely, Aruna Devi Choudhary who is said to have expired on
07.11.2023. The details of legal heirs and successors of the respondent
No. 13 have been mentioned in paragraph 3 of the interlocutory
application.
4. It is submitted that the respondent N. 13 has already been
substituted before the learned trial court by the order of the learned trial
court as annexed to the interlocutory application.
5. Mr. Akshay Kumar, the learned counsel for the respondents has
submitted that he is already in possession of the Vakalatnama and he has
no objection so far as the prayer for substitution is concerned. He is
otherwise ready to argue this case.
6. Considering the submission, I.A. No. 409 of 2025 is hereby
allowed.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to delete the name of
respondent No. 13 from the cause title and insert the name of legal heirs
and successors whose details have been mentioned in paragraph 3 of the
interlocutory application in red ink during the course of the day.
8. The Vakalatnama be also filed during the course of the day.
I.A. No. 800 of 2025 in Civil Revision No. 32 of 2014
9. This petition has been filed seeking substitution of respondent No.
13, namely, Aruna Devi Choudhary who is said to have expired on
07.11.2023. The details of legal heirs and successors of the respondent
No. 13 have been mentioned in paragraph 3 of the interlocutory
application.
10. It is submitted that she has already been substituted before the
learned trial court by the order of the learned trial court as annexed to the
interlocutory application.
11. Mr. Akshay Kumar, the learned counsel for the respondents has
submitted that he is already in possession of the Vakalatnama and he has
no objection so far as the prayer for substitution is concerned. He is
otherwise ready to argue this case.
12. Considering the submission, I.A. No. 800 of 2025 is hereby
allowed.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to delete the name of
respondent No. 13 from the cause title and insert the name of legal heirs
and successors whose details have been mentioned in paragraph 3 of the
interlocutory application in red ink during the course of the day.
The Vakalatnama be also filed during the course of the day.
I.A. No. 408 of 2025 in Civil Revision No. 14 of 2015
14. This petition has been filed seeking substitution of respondent No.
13, namely, Aruna Devi Choudhary who is said to have expired on
07.11.2023. The details of legal heirs and successors of the respondent
No. 13 have been mentioned in paragraph 3 of the interlocutory
application.
15. It is submitted that she has already been substituted before the
learned trial court by the order of the learned trial court as annexed to the
interlocutory application.
16. Mr. Akshay Kumar, the learned counsel for the respondents has
submitted that he is already in possession of the Vakalatnama and he has
no objection so far as the prayer for substitution is concerned. He is
otherwise ready to argue this case.
17. Considering the submission, I.A. No. 408 of 2025 is hereby
allowed.
18. Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to delete the name of
respondent No. 13 from the cause title and insert the name of legal heirs
and successors whose details have been mentioned in paragraph 3 of the
interlocutory application in red ink during the course of the day.
19. The Vakalatnama be also filed during the course of the day.
Civil Revision No. 28 of 2014, Civil Revision No. 32 of 2014 and Civil
Revision No. 14 of 2015.
20. Heard the learned counsels for the parties on the merits of the case.
The petitioner have also filed short written note of arguments. They
submit that they would further file short notes on the basis of arguments
which have been advanced during the court proceedings. They are
permitted to do so by 28.01.2025.
21. The learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondent
sisters/their legal representatives submit that they have nothing to say in
the matter.
22. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-
respondents has submitted that on the face of the memorandum of
partition, it indicated that further partition was required to be done in
future with respect to certain properties. He has also submitted that the
schedule of the plaint does not tally with the schedule of the properties
mentioned in the memorandum of partition. He submits that even if his
worst case of the plaintiff is taken into consideration and without
admitting that the partition had taken place way back in the year 1982,
then also there are much more properties which was required to be
partitioned. The learned counsel has submitted that the petition under
order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C. has been rightly dismissed by the learned
court which dies not call for any interference.
23. Arguments are concluded.
24. Post these cases for "Judgment" on 12.03.2025.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Saurav/Mukul
