Patna High Court
Ramdev Mehta vs Harilal Mehta And Ors on 6 February, 2025
Author: Arun Kumar Jha
Bench: Arun Kumar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.773 of 2017
======================================================
Ramdev Mehta, Son of Satya Narain Mehta, resident of Sadanandpur, P.S.
Bhaptiyahi, District- Supaul.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.1. Satya Narayan Mehta, Son of late Harilal Mehta, R/o Shahpur, P.S.
Bhaptiyahi, District-Supaul.
1.2. Awadh Narain Mehta, Son of late Harilal Mehta, R/o -Sadanandpur, P.S.
Bhaptiyahi, District- Supaul.
1.3. Ranjeet Mehta, Son of late Ramnarain Mehta, R/o -Sadanandpur, P.S.
Bhaptiyahi, District- Supaul.
1.4. Sanjeet Mehta, Son of late Ramnarain Mehta, R/o -Sadanandpur, P.S.
Bhaptiyahi, District- Supaul.
2. Jagarnath Mehta, Son of Harilal Mehta, Both are resident of Sadanandpur,
P.S. Bhaptiyahi, Dist.- Supaul.
3. Shanichar Sada Mushar.
4. Parmeshwari Sada Mushar. Both are sons of Late Kari Sada (Mushar).
resident of Sadanandpur, P.S. Bhaptiyahi, District- Supaul, presently residing
at Basmatiya, P.S. Ghurna, District- Araria.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : None.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 06-02-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. However, no one appears for the respondents. It
transpires from the previous order that matter was fixed today
by way of last opportunity to the respondents.
3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated
27.03.2017
passed by learned Sub Judge-IV, Supaul in Title Suit
No. 79/2004 whereby and whereunder the evidence of the
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.773 of 2017 dt.06-02-2025
defendant 2nd set was closed.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
on 18.03.2017, the case was fixed for evidence of defendant
no.3, who is petitioner herein and a petition for time has been
allowed with cost of Rs.100/- and next date was fixed for
27.03.2017. On that day, the defendant no.3/petitioner suddenly
fell ill and, for this reason, another time petition was filed on his
behalf on 27.03.2017. The learned Sub Judge-IV, Supaul
rejected the time petition and closed the evidence of defendant
no.3/petitioner. The learned counsel further submits that the
petitioner is an old person and after falling ill, he was treated in
Referal Hospital, Raghopur on 27.03.2017 and, for this reason,
he could not appear before the learned Sub Judge-IV, Supaul
and relevant documents in this regard have been annexed with
the present petition. The learned counsel further submits that
evidence of defendant no. 3/petitioner is necessary for proper
adjudication of the title suit and if the petitioner is not given
opportunity, he would suffer irreparable loss. The learned
counsel further submits that further proceeding in Title Suit No.
79/2004 has been stayed by the orders of a Coordinate Bench of
this Court dated 15.05.2018.
5. Perused the record.
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.773 of 2017 dt.06-02-2025
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
case as well as submission made on behalf of the petitioner, I
think the petitioner could be given an opportunity to adduce his
evidence and without going further into the details, the order
dated 27.03.2017 is set aside and the petitioner is directed to
adduce his evidence on three consecutive dates before the
learned trial court and the learned trial court would ensure that
no unnecessary adjournment is granted to the parties.
7. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the
present petition stands allowed.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
V.K.Pandey/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 07.02.2025
Transmission Date NA
