Sunday, 10, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Pratima Kunwar Aged About 62 Years Wife ... vs Bashistha Narayan Singh Son Of Late ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 132 Jhar

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 132 Jhar
Judgement Date : 5 May, 2025

Jharkhand High Court

Pratima Kunwar Aged About 62 Years Wife ... vs Bashistha Narayan Singh Son Of Late ... on 5 May, 2025

Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
                                                                           ( 2025:JHHC:13461 )

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
                           C.M.P. No. 828 of 2023
                                           ----

1.Pratima Kunwar aged about 62 years wife of late Ram Kumar Singh

2.Vikash Kumar, aged about 34 years, son of late Ram Kumar Singh

3.Vishal Kumar Singh, aged about 28 years son of late Ram Kumar Singh

4.Jay Kumar Singh, aged about 53 years son of late Balram Singh All residents of Village Bagamdha @ Ramuna, PO Ramuna, PS Ramuna, District Ghadwa, Jharkhand .... ... Petitioner(s)

-- Versus --

Bashistha Narayan Singh son of late Ramadhir Singh, resident of Village Bagaundha @ Ramuna, PS Nagar Untari, District-Garhwa ...... .... ...Opposite Party

----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

---

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party(s) : Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, Advocate

----

7/05.05.2025 Heard Mr. Rajeev Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner as well as Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, the learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the sole Opposite Party.

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

for setting aside the order dated 15.05.2023 passed by learned Civil Judge

(Jr.Division), Nagar Untari, Garhwa in Original Suit Case No.74 of 2006 whereby

the petition filed by the petitioner under Order XXIII Rule-1(3) read with

Section 151 of the CPC has been rejected by the learned court on the ground of

belated filing of the said petition.

3. Mr. Rajeev Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner submits that the said suit has been instituted for declaration of right,

title and interest. He submits that during the course of the proceeding it has

been transpires that inadvertently the suit was filed haphazardly and in view of

that the petition was filed for withdrawal of the same which has been rejected

by the learned court which is against the mandate of law. On this ground, he

submits that the said order may kindly be set aside. He relied in the case of

Sneh Gupta v. Devi Sarup And Others, (2009) 6 SCC 194 and referred to

( 2025:JHHC:13461 )

paragraph no.35 of the said judgment which is quoted below:

"35. A right to withdraw a suit in the suitor would be unqualified, if no right has been vested in any other party."

4. Mr. Shrivastav, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the sole

Opposite party submits that the argument is already going on and after

seventeen years the said petition has been filed and in light of that the learned

court has rightly passed the said order.

5. It is an admitted position that Original Suit No.74 of 2006 was instituted

in the said year for declaration of right, title and interest and petitioner herein

has been substituted subsequently as the original plaintiff has left for his

heavenly abode and thereafter the said petition has been filed. The suit was

filed in the year 2016 and after seventeen years the said petition has been filed

for withdrawal of the same to file afresh. After seventeen years the same has

been tried to withdraw with liberty to file a fresh suit when the proceeding in

the original suit has reached at the stage of argument. If such a situation is

there, the petitioner is having remedy to file appropriate petition for

amendment and that are being allowed by the court liberally if the nature of the

suit is not being changed. However, after seventeen years such a petition is

filed to withdraw the suit to file afresh and that too at the argument stage and

in view of that the learned court has been pleased to dismiss the said petition.

So far as the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner is

concerned, the ratio of that judgment is to the effect that if the right is not

vested in another party, that can be allowed and that can be the subject matter

of the trial only.

6. As such, the Court finds that there is no illegality in the impugned order,

and hence, this petition is dismissed.

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

SI/,

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter