Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 480 (JHR)

Shiv Dayal Prasad v. Akhilesh Prasad

2011-06-13

PRASHANT KUMAR

body2011
Order I.A. NO. 373 of 2009 It appears that vide order dated 08.12.2008, while allowing I.A. No. 1732 of 2008, this Court had substituted the name of legal heirs of deceased-respondent and issued notice to substituted heirs. 2. I.A. No. 373 of 2009 has been filed for addition of name of Ramdayal Prasad as a party respondent because he is also son of deceased sole respondent and due to inadvertence his name could not find place at para3 of I.A. No. 1732 of 2008. 3. Since, the other legal representatives of sole respondent has already been substituted and are on the record and the proposed respondent Ramdayal Prasad is also son of sole deceased respondent Puran Sao thus, in the interest of justice he is also impleaded in this appeal as respondent no. 36. 4. Issue notice to newly added respondent no. 36, for which requisites etc. under registered cover with A/D as well as under ordinary process must be filed by the appellant within one week, failing which I.A. No. 373 of 2009 shall stand rejected without further reference to the Bench. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to make necessary correction in the cause title of this appeal. I.A. NO. 2106 of 2009 6. I.A. No. 2106 of 2009 has been filed for restraining the respondents from interfering in the peaceful possession of the appellant in the suit premises. From perusal of para nos. 10, 11 & 12, it appears that respondents are in joint possession of the suit land and they have started construction work as back as in the month of October 2002, which by now must have already been completed. This I.A. has been filed in 2009 much after start of construction work. 7. It is worth mentioning that the gift deed on the basis of which appellant claimed title has already been declared void ab initio by the court below. 8. Under the said circumstance, I find that appellant has no prima facie case and balance of convenience is also not in his favour. 9. Hence, this I.A. No. 2106 0f 2009 is dismissed. I.A. NO. 4490 of 2010 10. Learned counsel for the appellant does not want to press this I.A. No. 4490 of 2010. 11. Accordingly, I.A. No. 4490 of 2010 is dismissed as not pressed.