Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2217 (JHR)

Pramod Kumar v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-10-04

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2018
JUDGMENT Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - The petitioner, who is one of the opposite-parties in Case No.29 of 2013, is aggrieved of order dated 12.05.2015 by which his application dated 19.07.2013 has been rejected. 2. Contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the impugned order dated 12.05.2015 is a cryptic order; it does not deal with the objection raised by the opposite-parties in their application dated 19.07.2013. 3. Mr. Birendra Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under 2nd proviso to section 87 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 the present suit is barred. 4. Case No.29 of 2013 has been filed for correction in the entries. The claimants have objected to the ''Purcha'' issued under section 83 (2) of the Act on the ground that previously Title Suit No.623 of 1963 was instituted in which a compromise decree was prepared and the schedule property was given to Gyan Chandra Saw. There is reference of another Title Suit No.46 of 1964 which was filed by Maga Ram Mallick and Others against Gyan Chandra Saw. The petitioner has pleaded that Case No.72 of 2009 filed under section 87 of Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 has been dismissed on 13.02.2013; the schedule property in this suit involves the same plot of land with respect to which the claimants have filed Case No.29 of 2013. In their written statement they have also referred to Case No.168 and 169 filed under section 83 of Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. In paragraph no.6 of their written statement the opposite-parties have asserted that for the same relief previously Case No.72 of 2009 was filed. 5. The 2nd proviso to section 87 of Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act provides that the Revenue Officer, shall not try any issue which has been, or is already, directly and substantially in issue between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, in the proceedings for the settlement of rent, where such issue has been tried and decided, or is already being tried, by a Revenue Officer under section 86 in proceedings instituted after the final publication of the record of rights. 6. 6. A bare glance at the application dated 19.07.2013 filed by the opposite-parties would reveal that a plea of res judicata has been raised by the opposite-parties and on that basis they are seeking an order of the court for dropping the proceedings in Case No.29 of 2013. Whether or not parties to Case No.72 of 2009 and the present case, that is, Case No.29 of 2013 are same and whether the issue which has been conclusively decided in Case No.72 of 2009 is directly and substantially an issue in Case No.29 of 2013, are the issues which require evidence. Evidently, at this stage on mere statement of the opposite-parties proceedings in Case No.29 of 2013 cannot be dropped. 7. May be the impugned order dated 12.05.2015 does not disclose specific reasons, in the aforesaid facts, in exercise of the powers conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter and accordingly this writ petition is dismissed.