Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 968 (JHR)

Somari Mundain v. State of Jharkhand

2009-07-14

D.N.PATEL

body2009
Judgment 1. Looking to the fact that original petitioner has expired on 25th of February, 2009, legal heir of the original petitioner is to be joined as party in place of the original petitioner in the writ petition and therefore, I hereby allow this interlocutory application and legal heir of the original petitioner is permitted to be joined as petitioner. 2. Necessary amendment shall be carried out during course of the day. 3. I.A. No. 1825 of 2009 stands disposed of. 4. The present petition has been preferred against an order passed by the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi, dated 26th of February, 2008 in S.A.R. Revision No. 66 of 2006 whereby an application of the present petitioner as an intervener, has been dismissed and therefore, the present petition has been preferred. 5. Having heard counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that:- (i)originally, one Suresh Munda has preferred S.A.R. Case No. 85 of 2000-01 before S.A.R Court. The said application was dismissed vide order dated 2nd July, 2001. (ii)being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, original applicant, Suresh Munda preferred an Appeal bearing S.A.R. Appeal No. 80-(R)-15/2001-02. Upon hearing the parties, S.A.R. Appeal was allowed vide order dated th of June, 2006 and a direction was given to the present respondent no. 5 to pay sizeable amount as stated in the order passed by the Appellate Authority. (iii)being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied by the Appellate Authority order, respondent no. 5 preferred a revision application bearing S.A.R. Revision No. 66 of 2006. This revision application is pending before the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi. (iv) thereafter, the original applicant, Suresh Munda, expired in the year 2004. Legal heir of the original applicant i.e. widow is joined as party in the revision application. Thus, widow of the original applicant Suresh Munda, is a party in the revision application. It is submitted by the counsel for the respondent no. 5 that even two children of the original applicant Suresh Munda, are also joined as party respondent in S.A.R. Revision No. 66 of 2006. Thus, widow of the original applicant Suresh Munda, is a party in the revision application. It is submitted by the counsel for the respondent no. 5 that even two children of the original applicant Suresh Munda, are also joined as party respondent in S.A.R. Revision No. 66 of 2006. (v) husband of the present petitioner is a brother of the original applicant Suresh Munda and he preferred an application for joining as party respondent in S.A.R. Revision application No. 66 of 2006 (which is filed by respondent No. 5) on the ground that he was even assisting original applicant in pursuing the cases and therefore, he should be heard. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the order passed by the revisional authority, no error has been committed by the revisional authority in dismissing the application preferred by the present petitioner merely because the present petitioner was assisting his brother cannot be a ground for joining him as a party respondent. There may be several persons/parties, assisting an original applicant, but, they cannot be joined as party in the proceeding upon death of original applicant. This aspect of the matter has been correctly appreciated by the revisional authority. It is also vehemently submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the property was belonging to a joint family and therefore also, present petitioner should be heard in the revision application preferred by the respondent no. 5 being a Karta of the joint family. This contention is not accepted by this Court mainly for the reason that it has been narrated by the revisional authority on page 2 of the impugned order that in Title Suit No. 1072 of 1963, a partition was accepted by the members of the joint family and the property in question was belonging to the original applicant with which the present petitioner has nothing to do or has no concern at all. Even otherwise also, the widow and the children of the original applicant Shri Suresh Munda, are already joined as party respondents, in S.A.R. Revision Application No. 66 of 2006 (filed by the respondent no. 5. 6. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, no error has been committed by the revisional authority in dismissing an application preferred by the present petitioner for joining as a party respondent/intervener. There is no substance in the writ petition. 5. 6. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, no error has been committed by the revisional authority in dismissing an application preferred by the present petitioner for joining as a party respondent/intervener. There is no substance in the writ petition. Hence, it is hereby dismissed. In view of the disposal of the writ petition, I.A. No. 1826 of 2009 also stands disposed of.