Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1308 (JHR)

Ramkumar Harishankar v. Rajesh Kasera

2019-07-19

H.C.MISHRA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. This revision is directed against the order dated 12.12.2006, passed by the learned A.J.C.-1, Ranchi, in Title Appeal No. 17 of 1994, which arose out of the Judgment and Decree dated 16.10.1993, passed in Eviction Title Suit No. 58 of 1989, decreeing the suit. Admittedly, the present petitioners are the tenants of the suit property and the decree was passed against them, against which they had filed the title appeal in the year 1994 itself, still pending in the Court of the learned A.J.C.-1, Ranchi. 3. Some defects have been pointed out regarding the party position by the office, for curing which, Interlocutory Application No. 6186 of 2019 has been filed. This revision is also hopelessly barred by limitation being barred by 4146 days, and for condonation of this inordinate delay of more than 11 years, Interlocutory Application No. 7584 of 2018 has been filed. Another Interlocutory Application No. 4823 of 2019 has been filed for ignoring some of the defects. 4. In the facts of this case, since the application itself can be disposed of without keeping this revision pending for any longer time, I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners on merits, in spite of the defects. 5. This application has been filed against the order of substitution of the legal heirs and representatives of the original plaintiff, in whose favour the eviction suit was decreed, and who was defendant before the Appellate Court below. During the pendency of the appeal the original plaintiff defendant Gopal Kasera died, and an application was filed under Order XXII Rule 3(1) of the C.P.C., by Rajesh Kasera and Minakshi Kasera, claiming themselves to be the heirs and legal representatives of the sole plaintiff, for their substitution, after the death of the original plaintiff, claiming themselves to be the adopted children of Late Gopal Kasera. 6. The substitution was challenged by the tenant appellants, stating that the suit property originally belonged to one Hari Bux Poddar, and the plaintiff Gopal Kasera only used to collect the rent of the suit property, though he was also one of the son-in-laws of Hari Bux Poddar. 6. The substitution was challenged by the tenant appellants, stating that the suit property originally belonged to one Hari Bux Poddar, and the plaintiff Gopal Kasera only used to collect the rent of the suit property, though he was also one of the son-in-laws of Hari Bux Poddar. Hari Bux Poddar died leaving behind four daughters and for bringing on record the heirs and legal representatives of Late Hari Bux Poddar, the substitution petition was filed by the tenant, objecting the substitution of Rajesh Kasera and Minakshi Kasera as the heirs and legal representatives of the original plaintiff, and praying that the heirs and legal representatives of Hari Bux Poddar be substituted instead. It is an admitted position that Hari Bux Poddar was not a party in the Eviction Suit. 7. Looking into the contest between the parties, the evidence was adduced from both the sides and after discussing the evidence, the Appellate Court below has come to the finding that the suit property, though originally belonged to Hari Bux Poddar, but the same was given in family arrangement to his son-in-law Gopal Kasera, and the other heirs of Hari Bux Poddar had no interest in the suit property. The Eviction Suit was also filed by late Gopal Kasera alone, and taking into consideration the evidence that Rajesh Kasera and Minakshi Kasera, were the legally adopted children of sole plaintiff Late Gopal Kasera, the substitution petition filed by them, was allowed by the impugned order dated 12.12.2006. 8. The defendants Judgment debtors have challenged that order in the present revision, after more than 11 years, stating that at the place of the adopted children of Late Gopal Kasera, the legal heirs and representatives of Hari Bux Poddar ought to have been substituted. 9. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed the revision application, there is no answer to the question as to how, when Hari Bux Poddar was not the plaintiff in the original suit, his heirs and legal representatives could be substituted at the place of the original plaintiff. Admittedly, the evidence has been adduced in the Trial Court below that the suit property had been given in a family arrangement to Late Gopal Kasera and thereafter he was the sole owner of the suit property and had filed the eviction suit in his own right, title and interest, being the landlord of the suit property. Admittedly, the evidence has been adduced in the Trial Court below that the suit property had been given in a family arrangement to Late Gopal Kasera and thereafter he was the sole owner of the suit property and had filed the eviction suit in his own right, title and interest, being the landlord of the suit property. Admittedly the heirs and legal representatives of Late Hari Bux Poddar have not filed any application for adding them as a party to the suit / appeal. Admittedly, whether the heirs and legal representatives of Late Hari Bux Poddar were parties in the suit or not, is not going to make any difference to the tenants petitioners, against whom the suit had been decreed long back in the year 1993 itself. This is a case, in which the eviction decree passed in the year 1993, has not been allowed to be executed by the defendant Judgment debtors for more than 25 years by now, and the appeal is kept pending for all these long years on one pretext or the other. 10. In the facts of this case, I find this to be a frivolous litigation by the defendants Judgment debtors, without any substance and merit in this revision application, which has only been filed with an intention to delay the disposal of the appeal. 11. In view of the aforesaid finding, there is no question of condoning the inordinate delay of 4146 days in filing this revision. As such, Interlocutory Application No. 7584 of 2018 stands dismissed. 12. This Civil Revision is accordingly, dismissed with cost, which is quantified at Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand), for filing this malicious revision, bereft of any merit and hopelessly barred by limitation, challenging the impugned order after more than 11 years. Other Interlocutory Applications also stand disposed of.