Jharkhand High Court
Punit Gope vs Most Chundari @ Most. Goura on 11 March, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
C.M.P. No. 603 of 2024
1. Punit Gope, (aged about 67 years), s/o Late
Churaman Gope.
2. Khublal Gope, (aged about 62 years), s/o Late
Churaman Gope.
3. Deglal Gope, (aged about 60 years), s/o Late
Churaman Gope
4. Mahadeo Gope, (aged about 51 years), s/o Late
Churaman Gope
All residents of Village Jhurjhuri, P.O. & P.S.
Barkatha, Barkatha, District - Hazaribag,
Jharkhand.
..... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Most Chundari @ Most. Goura, d/o late Hupali
Gope & w/o late Kamal Gope.
2. Jhabu Gope, s/o Late Jaswa.
3. Khubali Gope, s/o - Late Jaswa
All residents of Village Jhurjhuri, P.O. & P.S.
Barkatha, Barkatha, District - Hazaribag,
Jharkhand.
4. Baleshwar Yadav, s/o Parmeshwar Yadav.
5. Narayan Yadav, s/o Parmeshwar Yadav.
Both residents of village Chamgudo, P.O.
Kako, P.S. -Telaiya Dam, District - Koderma.
6. Girja Devi, d/o Late Churaman Mahto, w/o - Late
Sewa Gope.
Resident of village Kimanyaan, P.O.
Gangpancho, P.S. Barkatha, District - Hazaribag.
7. Chintaman Mahto, s/o - Late Bishun Mahto.
8. Chhoti Mahto, s/o Late Bishun Mahto.
9. Ramlakhan Mahto, s/o - Late Bishun Mahto.
All residents of village Jhurjhuri, P.O. & P.S.
Barkatha, District-Hazaribag.
..... ... Opposite Parties
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Pratyush Kumar, Advocate.
For the O.P. Nos. 1 to 5 : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, Advocate.
------
06/ 11.03.2025 Heard Mr. Pratyush Kumar, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners and Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, learned counsel
appearing for the O.P. Nos. 1 to 5, who are the contesting opposite
parties.
2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, wherein prayer has been made for setting aside
the order dated 14.06.2024, passed in Partition Suit No. 11 of 1989 by
the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)-I, Hazaribag, whereby, the learned
court has been pleased to allow the petition which has been filed for
objecting the preparation of the final decree on the ground that the
purchasers of the part of the land of the suit property were not made the
parties in the suit.
3. Mr. Pratyush Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners/defendants submits that the suit property was sold to certain
persons, but those persons have not been made party, in view of that the
objection has been made and the learned court has been pleased to
dispose of the prayer saying that after the Pleader Commissioner
Report, that can be considered. He relied in the case of Dhanalakshmi
& Ors. Versus P. Mohan & Ors., reported in (2007) 10 SCC 719.
4. Relying on the above judgment, he submits that the
purchasers are the necessary parties and the learned court has wrongly
passed the said order.
5. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. Nos. 1
to 5 submits that the learned court has protected the right of the
petitioners and rightly said that upon the Pleader Commissioner Report,
the same will be considered.
6. In view of the above, the court finds that the learned court
has disposed of the petition of the petitioners/defendants saying that
once the Pleader Commissioner Report will be there, the contention
raised by the petitioners/defendants can be decided. In view of that the
learned court has protected the right of the petitioners/defendants and
further it has been pointed out the Pleader Commissioner Report has
not been submitted as yet.
7. As such, this petition is disposed of with the liberty to the
petitioners/defendants that after submission of the Pleader
Commissioner Report, they may contend the same before the learned
court.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Amitesh/-
