Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11932 of 2013 ====================================================== Krishna Pratap Narayan Singh son of Ram Ayodhya Singh resident of Mohalla Bhaluhipur, P.S. Arrah Town, District Bhojpur. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. Rana Bharat @ Bharat Kumar Singh son of Ram Ayodhya Singh 2. Sheshank Singh 3. Devesh Singh both minor sons of Bharat kumar Singh under guardianship of their father Bharat Kumar Singh, all residents of Mohalla Bhalu Hipur, P.S. Arrah Town, District Bhojpur. 4. Ram Ayodhya Singh 5. Krishna Kumar Singh, both sons of late Ram Khelawan Singh resident of Mohalla Bhaluhipur, P.S. Arrah Town, District Bhojpur. 6. Pradip Kumar Singh 7. Dilip Kumar Singh, both sons of Ram Ayodhya Singh 8. Pratik Singh alias Yash Kumar Singh, minor son of Pradip Kumar Singh under guardianship of his father Pradip Kumar Singh 9. Arbind Kumar Singh son of Late Ram Sewak Singh 10. Sidharth Singh minor son of Krishna Kumar Singh under guardianship of his father Krishna Kumar Singh, all resident of Mohalla Bhaluhipur, P.S. Arrah Town, District Bhojpur. 11. Durga Singh wife of Dr. Gulab Singh resident of Mohalla Teachers Flat, Maharaja College, Ara, P.S. Ara Nawadah, District Bhojpur. 12. Kamla Singh wife of Late Kunwar Bhartendu Singh resident of village Khairha, P.S. Budhar, District Sahdoi (M.P.) 13. Krishna Singh wife of Late Brijendra Prasad Singh resident of Sector 18, Rohani, Delhi. 14. Raj Kishori Singh daughter of Ram Ayodhya Sihngh wife of Satendra Kumar Singh resident of Shyam Lal Ka Bagiya, Old Haridrabad, Lucknow, District Lucknow (U.P.) 15. Anupama Singh wife of Dr. Pradip Kumar Singh resident of House No. 53, Lane no. 3, Keshav Bihari Colony, G.M.S. Road, Dehradun, P.O. Dehradun, District Dehradun (Uttra Khand). 16. Archana Singh daughter of Late Sachchidanand Singh wife of Priya Ranjan Kumar Singh resident of Behind Maner Petrol Pump near Durga Temple, East Mohalla P.S. Maner, District Patna. 17. Kumari Neha Singh 18. Jaya Singh both daughters of Krishna Kumar Singh son of Mohalla Bhaluhipur, P.S. Arrah Town, District Bhojpur.
Legal Reasoning
19. Smt. Sunita Tiwary wife of Mritunjay Tiwary resident of village Sunderpur Barja, P.S. Bihiya, District Bhojpur. 20. Gayatri Mishra wife of Sushil Kumar Mishra, resident of Mohalla Shital Tola Devi Lane, Arrah P.S. Arrah town, District Bhojpur. 21. Urmila Devi wife of Ramanuj Pandey resident of Naya Sabalpur, P.s. Barahara, District Bhojpur. 22. Gauri Shankar Pandey 23. Vijay Kumar Pandey 24. Krishna Kumar Pandey all sons of Awadhesh Kumar Pandey, resident of village Babura, PL.S. Barahara, District Bhojpur. 25. Mostt. Chandra Shila Devi wife of Late Shashikant Pandey resident of Patna High Court CWJC No.11932 of 2013 (3) dt.16-07-2013 2 village Khangaon, P.s. Chandi District Bhojpur. 26. Meera Devi wife of Dipak Kumar Singh resident of village Dewariya, P.S. Sripalpur, P.S. Koilwar, District Bhojpur. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12461 of 2013 ====================================================== Krishna Pratap Narayan Singh son of Ram Ayodhya Singh resident of Mohalla Bhaluhipur, P.S. Arrah Town, District Bhojpur. Versus .... .... Petitioner/s 1. Rana Bharat @ Bharat Kumar Singh son of Ram Ayodhya Singh 2. Sheshank Singh 3. Devesh Singh both minor sons of Bharat kumar Singh under guardianship of their father Bharat Kumar Singh, all residents of Mohalla Bhalu Hipur, P.S. Arrah Town, District Bhojpur. 4. Ram Ayodhya Singh 5. Krishna Kumar Singh, both sons of late Ram Khelawan Singh resident of Mohalla Bhaluhipur, P.S. Arrah Town, District Bhojpur. 6. Pradip Kumar Singh 7. Dilip Kumar Singh, both sons of Ram Ayodhya Singh 8. Pratik Singh alias Yash Kumar Singh, minor son of Pradip Kumar Singh under guardianship of his father Pradip Kumar Singh 9. Arbind Kumar Singh son of Late Ram Sewak Singh 10. Sidharth Singh minor son of Krishna Kumar Singh under guardianship of his father Krishna Kumar Singh, all resident of Mohalla Bhaluhipur, P.S. Arrah Town, District Bhojpur. 11. Durga Singh wife of Dr. Gulab Singh resident of Mohalla Teachers Flat, Maharaja College, Ara, P.S. Ara Nawadah, District Bhojpur. 12. Kamla Singh wife of Late Kunwar Bhartendu Singh resident of village Khairha, P.S. Budhar, District Sahdoi (M.P.) 13. Krishna Singh wife of Late Brijendra Prasad Singh resident of Sector 18, Rohani, Delhi. 14. Raj Kishori Singh daughter of Ram Ayodhya Sihngh wife of Satendra Kumar Singh resident of Shyam Lal Ka Bagiya, Old Haridrabad, Lucknow, District Lucknow (U.P.) 15. Anupama Singh wife of Dr. Pradip Kumar Singh resident of House No. 53, Lane no. 3, Keshav Bihari Colony, G.M.S. Road, Dehradun, P.O. Dehradun, District Dehradun (Uttra Khand). 16. Archana Singh daughter of Late Sachchidanand Singh wife of Priya Ranjan Kumar Singh resident of Behind Maner Petrol Pump near Durga Temple, East Mohalla P.S. Maner, District Patna. 17. Kumari Neha Singh 18. Jaya Singh both daughters of Krishna Kumar Singh son of Mohalla Bhaluhipur, P.S. Arrah Town, District Bhojpur. 19. Smt. Sunita Tiwary wife of Mritunjay Tiwary resident of village Sunderpur Barja, P.S. Bihiya, District Bhojpur. 20. Gayatri Mishra wife of Sushil Kumar Mishra, resident of Mohalla Shital Tola Devi Lane, Arrah P.S. Arrah town, District Bhojpur. 21. Urmila Devi wife of Ramanuj Pandey resident of Naya Sabalpur, P.s. Barahara, District Bhojpur. Patna High Court CWJC No.11932 of 2013 (3) dt.16-07-2013 3 22. Gauri Shankar Pandey 23. Vijay Kumar Pandey 24. Krishna Kumar Pandey all sons of Awadhesh Kumar Pandey, resident of village Babura, PL.S. Barahara, District Bhojpur. 25. Mostt. Chandra Shila Devi wife of Late Shashikant Pandey resident of village Khangaon, P.s. Chandi District Bhojpur. 26. Meera Devi wife of Dipak Kumar Singh resident of village Dewariya, P.S. Sripalpur, P.S. Koilwar, District Bhojpur. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : (In CWJC No.11932 of 2013) For the Petitioner/s : M/S. Ashok Kumar Mishra & Varun Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Singh (In CWJC No.12461 of 2013) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. For the Respondent/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 3 16-07-2013 A partition suit bearing Title Suit No. 167 of 2008 was filed in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Arrah by the petitioner and respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3. The petitioner happened to be plaintiff no. 1 whereas respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 were plaintiff nos. 2, 3 and 4 respectively. Plaintiff Nos. 3 and 4 are minor sons of plaintiff no. 2 (respondent no. 1). It seems that during pendency of the suit plaintiff no. 1 (petitioner) entered into some sort of compromise with some of the defendants. Thereafter he filed an application on 30.01.2013 for transposing plaintiff nos. 2, 3 and 4 who are the contesting respondents, as defendants in the suit. The said application is annexure-1 to the writ application under Article 227 Patna High Court CWJC No.11932 of 2013 (3) dt.16-07-2013 4 of the Constitution of India. Respondent nos. 1,2 and 3 i.e. plaintiff nos. 2,3 and 4 also filed an application on 8.3.2013 for transposition of plaintiff no. 1 as the defendant on the ground that plaintiff no. 1/petitioner had entered into some compromise with the defendants and as he was not supporting the case of partition as brought originally and also that he was not coming for his cross examination. These two applications dated 30.1.2013 and 8.3.2013 have been disposed of by a common order dated 4.6.2013 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge V, Arrah in the aforesaid Title Suit no. 167 of 2008. The petitioner’s application dated 30.1.2013 for transposition of plaintiff nos. 2 to 4 (respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3) has been rejected whereas the application dated 8.3.2013 filed by respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 for transposition of plaintiff no. 1 (petitioner) has been allowed and accordingly, plaintiff no.1/petitioner has been transposed as defendant. These two applications under Article 227 of the Constitution of India have been preferred against a common order passed by the court below on 4.6.2013 on two applications dated 30.1.2013 and 8.3.2013, as noted above. Accordingly, these two writ applications have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. Patna High Court CWJC No.11932 of 2013 (3) dt.16-07-2013 5 I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of plaintiff nos. 2, 3 and 4 before the court below who are respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 in both these cases. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently contended that the learned court below wrongly allowed the application dated 8.3.2013 for his transposition as defendant on erroneous ground that the petitioner was not turning up for his cross examination as a plaintiff. He submits that, as a matter of fact, the petitioner was examined as a plaintiff before the court below and the court below has committed an error of record by mentioning that the petitioner was not turning up for his examination. He further submits that the court below ought to have allowed his application which was earlier in time filed on 30.1.2013 for transposition of respondent nos. 1,2 and 3 as defendants, in the facts and circumstances of the case. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents, on the other hand, has supported the order and has contended that as the petitioner was not supporting the case of the plaintiffs and instead he entered into a compromise with some of the defendants, the suit could not have proceeded with him as the plaintiff. He, therefore, submits that the court Patna High Court CWJC No.11932 of 2013 (3) dt.16-07-2013 6 below rightly ordered for petitioner’s transposition as defendant. This is an admitted fact that during the pendency of the suit the petitioner intended to enter into a compromise with some of the defendants which compromise was not acceptable to other plaintiffs i.e. respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3. Apparently, there is clash of interest between plaintiff no. 1 (petitioner) on the one hand and plaintiff nos. 2 to 4 (respondent nos. 1 to 3) on the other. The petitioner is, thus, no more interested in supporting the case of other plaintiffs. In such circumstance, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order by which the petitioner/plaintiff no. 1 has been ordered to be transposed as defendant. I also do not find any illegality in the order by which the petitioner’s application for transposition of respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 as defendants has been rejected, in the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted above. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however, submits that the case of the petitioner will be seriously prejudiced at this stage after him being transposed as defendant, if he is not allowed to file his written statement, if such necessity arises. He submits that the court below, while passing the impugned order ought to have granted this liberty to the petitioner to file a written statement, if required. It is made clear Patna High Court CWJC No.11932 of 2013 (3) dt.16-07-2013 7 that the petitioner after having been transposed as defendant shall have the liberty to file his written statement and the suit shall thereafter proceed accordingly. This is also observed that no objection on the ground of delay in filing written statement shall be taken, if such written statement is filed within one month from today. With the observation as above, both these
Decision
applications are accordingly, disposed of. Amin/- (Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J)