THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM: GANGTOK
(Civil Revisional Jurisdiction)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SINGLE BENCH: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN, JUDGE
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C.R.P. No. 05 of 2022
Ms. Anu Hangma Subba,
Aged about 36 years,
D/o late Jas Hang Subba,
R/o Shantinagar Chisopani,
P.O. & P.S. Singtam,
East Sikkim. 737 134.
..... Revisionist
Versus
1. Gyan Bahadur Chettri,
S/o late Laxmunan Chettri,
R/o Lower Lingchey,
P.O. & P.S. Singtam,
East Sikkim-737 134.
2. Ganga Ram Chettri,
S/o late Laxmunan Chettri,
R/o Lower Lingchey,
P.O. & P.S. Singtam,
East Sikkim-737 134.
3. Suraj Chettri,
S/o late Laxmunan Chettri,
R/o Lower Lingchey,
P.O. & P.S. Singtam,
East Sikkim-737 134.
4. Milan Tamang,
S/o late Dutey Tamang,
R/o Lower Lingchey,
P.O. & P.S. Singtam,
East Sikkim-737 134.
5. Kharman Tamang,
S/o late Dutey Tamang,
R/o Lower Lingchey,
P.O. & P.S. Singtam,
East Sikkim-737 134.
2
C.R.P. No. 05 of 2022
Ms. Anu Hangma Subba vs. Shri Gyan Bahadur Chettri & Ors.
6. Dawa Tshering Tamang,
S/o late Dutey Tamang,
R/o Lower Lingchey,
P.O. & P.S. Singtam,
East Sikkim-737 134.
7. Bal Bdr. Chettri,
S/o late Sriman Chettri,
R/o Lower Lingchey,
P.O. & P.S. Singtam,
East Sikkim-737 134.
8. Duryodhan Chettri,
S/o late Sriman Chettri,
R/o Lower Lingchey,
P.O. & P.S. Singtam,
East Sikkim-737 134.
9. Man Bahadur Chettri,
S/o late Sriman Chettri,
R/o Lower Lingchey,
P.O. & P.S. Singtam,
East Sikkim-737 134.
10. Padam Prasad Chettri,
S/o late Sriman Chettri,
R/o Lower Lingchey,
P.O. & P.S. Singtam,
East Sikkim-737 134.
11. State of Sikkim,
Through the Chief Secretary,
Tashiling Secretariat, Tashiling,
P.O. & P.S. Gangtok, District-East,
Sikkim - 737 103.
12. The Secretary,
Land Revenue & Disaster Management
Department,
Government of Sikkim,
Tashiling Secretariat, Tashiling,
P.O. & P.S. Gangtok, District-East,
Sikkim - 737 103.
13. The Secretary,
Forest and Environment Department,
(formerly Forests, Environment and Wildlife
Management Department)
Government of Sikkim,
3
C.R.P. No. 05 of 2022
Ms. Anu Hangma Subba vs. Shri Gyan Bahadur Chettri & Ors.
Forest Secretariat, Deorali,
P.O. & P.S. Gangtok, District-Gangtok,
East Sikkim- 737 101.
14. District Collector,
Gangtok District, District Administrative Centre,
Sichey, P.O. & P.S. Gangtok,
District Gangtok, East Sikkim 737 101.
.....Respondents
Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India.
Impugned order dated 07.07.2022 passed by the learned Civil
Judge, East Sikkim at Gangtok in Title Suit No.08 of 2018, (Gyan
Bahadur Chettri & Ors. vs. State of Sikkim & 3 Ors.)
AND
Impugned Order dated 02.11.2021 passed by the learned Civil
Judge, East Sikkim at Gangtok under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2
read with section 151 of the CPC in civl Misc. Case No. 13 of 2021
(Shri Gyan Bahadur Chettri & 9 Ors. Vs. State of Sikkim & 03
Ors.).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Mr. J. B. Pradhan, Senior Advocate with Mr. M. N.
Dhungel, and Ms. Rachana Rai, Advocates for the
Revisionist.
Mr. B. Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. B. N. Sharma,
Ms. Shreya Sharma, Ms. Puja Kumari Singh and Ms.
Roshni Chettri, Advocates for the Respondent nos. 1 to
10.
Mr. S. K. Chettri, Government Advocate for the
Respondent nos. 11 to 14.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing : 27.07.2023.
Date of Judgment : 27.07.2023
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J.
1. Heard Mr. J. B. Pradhan, learned Senior Counsel for the
revisionist; Mr. B. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel for the 4 C.R.P. No. 05 of 2022 Ms. Anu Hangma Subba vs. Shri Gyan Bahadur Chettri & Ors.
respondent nos. 1 to 10 and Mr. S. K. Chettri, learned
Government Advocate for the respondent nos. 1 to 14.
2. The revisionist had challenged the impugned Orders dated
07.07.2022 and 02.11.2021 by which an application for
impleadment under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (CPC) filed by the revisionist was rejected and
the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC filed by the
respondent nos. 1 to 10 was allowed issuing certain directions
upon the respondent no. 13 herein. It is the specific plea of the
revisionist that the suit land involved in Title Suit No.08 of 2018
are separate pieces of land described in Schedule A, B and C
falling under Sumin Lingchey near Singtam East Sikkim whereas
the properties which the revisionist seeks to protect is situated at
Chisopani, Revenue Block under Sang Circle.
3. The learned Trial Judge vide Order dated 07.07.2022 has
rejected the application under Order I Rule 10 CPC filed by the
revisionist seeking impleadment in Title Suit No.08 of 2018 on
the ground that the revisionist had failed to show that she has
any interest in the suit properties. The learned Trial Judge also
held that the suit properties and the land claimed by the
revisionist are different. This is exactly what has been claimed by
the revisionist through her counsel which is also accepted by Mr.
B. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel who appears for respondent
nos.1 to 10 who are the original plaintiffs.
4. In such view of the matter, this court is of the considered
view that the application under Order I Rule 10 CPC was rightly 5 C.R.P. No. 05 of 2022 Ms. Anu Hangma Subba vs. Shri Gyan Bahadur Chettri & Ors.
rejected since the revisionist was neither a necessary nor a
proper party.
5. By the impugned Order dated 02.11.2021 the learned
Trial Judge had directed the respondent no.3 who is now
respondent no.13 to dismantle the illegally erected barbed wire
fence in the portion of the suit property and to ensure that there
is no interference in the suit property by any third party till
disposal of the case. In view of the categorical submissions made
by the learned counsel for the parties this order also cannot
affect the revisionist at all. Therefore, the impugned Order dated
02.11.2021 also calls for no interference. On hearing the learned
counsel for the revisionist, it seems the grievance of the
revisionist is against the respondent no.13, if at all. The
revisionist may, if she so desires pursue her legal remedy in an
appropriate forum, if such rights exists. No order as to costs.
( Bhaskar Raj Pradhan )
Judge
Approved for reporting : Yes
Internet : Yes
to/
