Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 754 (JHR)

Kamal Ram Verma v. State of Jharkhnd

2021-09-14

KAILASH PRASAD DEO

body2021
ORDER : 1. Heard, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. A. K. Shahani. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 19.12.2013 passed by learned Sub-Judge-IV, Ranchi in Title Suit No.90/2009, whereby the petition dated 08.08.2011 filed under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 C.P.C. by the intervener, Ajit kumar has been allowed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that plaintiffs have filed Title Suit No.90/2009, claiming the piece of land appertaining to R.S. Plot No.507 and 518 under Khata No.79 measuring an area 1.96 acres and 0.43 acres respectively and Plot No. 776 under Khata No.26 measuring an area 0.33 acres situated at Village-Tiril, P.S.-Sadar, Thana No.195, District-Ranchi, against the State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi and Circle Officer, Town Anchal Ranchi. During pendency of the title suit, the intervener initially filed an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC on 29.04.2010, which was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 13.01.2011. Subsequently second intervener petition was filed on 08.08.2011 and due to persistent absence of the intervener, the same was rejected as not pressed on 15.02.2012. Thereafter, a petition under Section 151 CPC dated 05.07.2012 was filed on behalf of intervener for recalling the order dated 15.02.2012, which was also dismissed in default vide order dated 27.07.2012. The intervener again filed a petition on 13.08.2012 for recall of orders dated 15.02.2012 and 27.07.2012, which was also dismissed for default vide order dated 20.09.2012. However, subsequently vide order dated 30.09.2013, the learned Sub-Judge-IV, Ranchi has recalled the order dated 20.09.2012 whereupon the petition on behalf of intervener was fixed for hearing. Thereafter, after hearing the parties, the learned court below has considered that partition suit has been filed on behalf of the plaintiffs for confirmation of right, title and interest as well as possession over the suit property and for adjudication that the initiation of proceeding vide Jamabandi Case No.3/2006-2007 by the defendant No.2 was without jurisdiction and contrary to the law, as such, the learned Court below, without considering that other applications filed by the intervener to add him as party respondent under Order I Rule 10 CPC is hit by principles of res-judicata, has allowed the intervention petition filed under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. read with Section 151 C.P.C. and allowed the intervener to be added as defendant, as such, writ petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that this is an attempt by the intervener to delay the disposal of the suit. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and on perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the application is not hit by principle of res-judicata, as other applications filed under Order I Rule 10 CPC by the intervener have not been adjudicated on merits, rather those have been dismissed as not pressed or dismissed for default, but issue has never been decided. The learned Trial Court has rightly held that plaintiffs have sought a relief against the State for restraining the proceeding in Jamabandi Case No. 03/2006-07 as well as for confirmation of their right, title and interest over the suit property, as such, it would be proper to have effective and complete adjudication of all the questions and issues involved in the suit and thus the intervener has been added as a party defendant in the suit. 6. This Court has not found any illegality or perversity in the reasoning recorded by the learned Trial Court warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. 8. Pursuant to the intervention application, if any written statement is filed by the intervener, the plaintiffs and other contesting defendants have every right to file additional pleading in reply to the written statement filed by the intervener. 9. However, the Trial Court is directed to frame issue with regard to the claim of the interveners apart from the issue, which has already been framed. 10. Since there is an apprehension of the plaintiffs/petitioners that the disposal of the suit may be delayed because of the intervener, this Court directs the intervener to adduce evidence within a period of three months from the date when his evidence is fixed and learned Trial court shall close the evidence of the intervener after 90 days from the date of opening of the evidence of the intervener. Thereafter, the suit shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible without giving unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties. 11. The instant writ petition is hereby dismissed with aforesaid directions. 12. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court below as well as to the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi to look into the matter.