Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 88 (JHR)

Akhileshwara Nand Puri v. State of Jharkhand

2015-01-21

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2015
ORDER : I.A. No. 2848 of 2010 This application has been filed seeking substitution of one Shailendra Nand Puri in place of original writ petitioner namely, Akhileshwara Nand Puri. 2. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that during the pendency of the writ petition, the original petitioner died however, before an application for substitution was filed, the writ petition stood dismissed in default vide order dated 17.01.2012. Thereafter, an application for restoration being C.M.P. No. 35 of 2012 was filed on 27.01.2012 and, in view of the objection raised by the Registry in the C.M.P., an application being I.A. No. 1329 of 2012 was filed on 12.04.2012. I.A. No. 1329 of 2012 was allowed vide order dated 18.04.2012 and thereafter, the writ petition was restored to its original file vide order dated 02.09.2014 by which the said C.M.P. No. 35 of 2012 was allowed. The learned counsel for the applicant further submits that initially a title suit being Title Suit No. 102 of 2001 was filed by the proposed petitioner (applicant) seeking a declaration of his status as Mahanth. In the said title suit, an application for injunction restraining defendant no. 1 was filed which was allowed vide order dated 08.03.2002. Against the said order a Civil Misc. Appeal No. 04 of 2002 was filed in which vide order dated 19.03.2002 an order of “status quo” was granted. It is thus submitted that the proposed petitioner has been able to establish that he is the legal heir and successor of the Mahant Akhileshwara Nand Puri who has died during the pendency of the writ petition and therefore, I.A. No. 2848 of 2010 seeking substitution should be allowed. 3. Controverting the contention made by the learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Bhaiya Vishwajeet Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 7 submits that in view of the proceeding before the Trial Court, it is apparent that the applicant's status as a legal heir of Mahanth Akhileshwara Nand Puri is yet to be adjudicated. Merely because an order of injunction has been granted against the defendant no. 1, the applicant cannot be deemed to have succeeded Mahanth Akhileshwara Nand Puri. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 5. Merely because an order of injunction has been granted against the defendant no. 1, the applicant cannot be deemed to have succeeded Mahanth Akhileshwara Nand Puri. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 5. A perusal of plaint of T.S. No. 102 of 2001 indicates that the proposed petitioner is the plaintiff who sought a declaration from the Court that he is the Mahanth of the defendant nos. 2 & 3 because he has been validly appointed by defendant no. 1. The said suit is still pending. I.A. No. 1329 of 2012 filed by the present applicant is bereft of all necessary facts. Neither the dispute between the parties nor the pendency of Title Suit No. 102 of 2001 was disclosed by the applicant. I am of the opinion that it was done with a view to mislead this Court and for that action of the applicant must be deprecated. In C.M.P. No. 35 of 2012 also the applicant made apparently false statement that after the death of the original writ petitioner he has succeeded him as his legal heir. Proceeding in C.M.P. No. 35 of 2012 does not reflect that the respondent no. 7 was granted liberty to file reply to I.A. No. 1329 of 2012. Order dated 18.04.2012 also does not disclose the presence of the respondent no. 7. I am of the considered opinion that the applicant has intentionally misled this Court and got the writ petition restored by making false statement on oath. I do not find any merit in the present application. Even though the Trial Court has restrained the defendant no.1/respondent no. 7 from interfering in the working of the Mahantship and defendant no. 2 did not oppose the injunction petition, the fact remains that the dispute is still to be adjudicated. The applicant has no right to file the present application seeking his substitution in place of the original petitioner. 6. In view of aforesaid, the present application is dismissed with cost of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand) imposed upon the applicant which would be deposited with the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority(JHALSA), Ranchi within a period of six weeks. W.P. (C) No. 4741 of 2003 7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. I.A. No. 3395 of 2006 and I.A. No. 3396 of 2006 stand dismissed. 8. 5,000/- (five thousand) imposed upon the applicant which would be deposited with the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority(JHALSA), Ranchi within a period of six weeks. W.P. (C) No. 4741 of 2003 7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. I.A. No. 3395 of 2006 and I.A. No. 3396 of 2006 stand dismissed. 8. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Secretary, Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority (JHALSA), Ranchi.