Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 348 (JHR)

Udai Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2012-03-12

R.K.MERATHIA

body2012
Judgment This review petition has been filed for reviewing the order dated 26.08.2010, passed in WPC No. 3569 of 2008, dismissing the writ petition filed by the review petitioner. 2. Mr. V. Shivnath, learned senior counsel, appearing for the review petitioner, submitted that in Title Suit No. 44/2003, filed by the opposite party nos. 5 to 9 herein, against the review petitioner, and the State authorities, and in Title Suit No. 62/2004 filed by the review petitioner against the State Authorities and opposite party nos. 5 to 9 herein, the property in question is the same and therefore it is proper that both the suits are heard analogous or one after another. He further submitted that the review petitioner is ready to compensate the defendants-opposite parties by paying cost for recall of the witness already examined in Title Suit No. 44/2003. 3. On the other hand, Mr. P.K. Prasad, learned senior counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 5, submitted that the suit filed by the opposite party nos. 5 to 9 herein being Title Suit No. 44/2003 was in earlier point of time. In the said suit, it was inter alia contended that the plaintiffs therein and the private defendants, both have interest in the property. Actually, the suit was against the State Government and it's authorities. But the review petitioner filed the written statement claiming the entire suit land exclusively. The said suit was filed before the learned Sub Judge. Thereafter, review petitioner filed Title Suit No. 62/2004 before the learned Munsif Court raising similar contentions raised in the written statement filed in Title -2Suit No. 44/2003. He further submitted that the conduct of the review petitioner is also relevant as he deliberately did not make the plaintiffs of Title Suit No. 44/2003 parties in the Title Suit No. 62/2004 filed by him. However, the plaintiffs of Title Suit No.44/2003 intervened and were made parties in Title Suit No. 62/2004. Thereafter, they filed a petition under section 10 CPC for staying Title Suit No. 62/2004, which was allowed after hearing the parties by order dated 27.02.2008. Against which, the said writ petition being WPC No. 3569 of 2008 was filed. Mr. P.K. Prasad highlighted the purpose of section 10 CPC. He further submitted that as section 10 CPC has been applied in this case, the question of invoking section 151 CPC or any other provision does not arise. Against which, the said writ petition being WPC No. 3569 of 2008 was filed. Mr. P.K. Prasad highlighted the purpose of section 10 CPC. He further submitted that as section 10 CPC has been applied in this case, the question of invoking section 151 CPC or any other provision does not arise. He also submitted that the plaintiff's evidence has been closed in Title Suit No. 44/2003 and the defendants have also examined one witness but thereafter the review petitioner is taking time on the plea of pendency of civil review petition. 4. In reply, Mr. Shivnath submitted that the review petitioner is not challenging the order passed under section 10 C.P.C. He further submitted that the issues in both the suits would not be same. But as the property and the parties are same, both the suits should be tried analogous or one after another. 5. After hearing the parties at length and carefully going through the records, I find force in the submission of Mr. P.K. Prasad. It appears that the Title Suit No. 62/2004 filed by the review petitioner was stayed on the application filed under section 10 CPC by opposite party nos. 5 to 9 herein. That order was challenged by the review petitioner by filing WPC No. 3569 of 2008. The said writ petition was dismissed with the following order:- " This writ petition has been field against the order dated 27.2.2008 passed by the learned Munsif, Palamau at Daltonganj in Title Suit No. 62 of 2004, allowing the petition filed by the defendants/respondents for staying Title Suit No. 62 of 2004, filed by the petitioner, till disposal of Title Suit No. 44 of 2003 filed by respondents No. 5 to 9 herein. It appears that the learned court below after hearing the parties and considering the respective cases, inter alia, held that in both the suits, the matter in issue is substantially the same between the parties and therefore it has passed order for staying the subsequent suit in Title Suit No. 62 of 2004. No grounds are made out for interfering with the impugned order in exercise of supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed." 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, noticed above, in my opinion, no grounds are made out for reviewing the said order. No grounds are made out for interfering with the impugned order in exercise of supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed." 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, noticed above, in my opinion, no grounds are made out for reviewing the said order. Accordingly, this review petition is dismissed.