Sriram Giri v. Anand Mohan Srivasatava

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Dubey For the Resp. 2 & 3 : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar & Mr. Kundan Kumar For the Resp. 10 : Mr. Sandip Singh, AC to GP-9 For Resp. No. 9 : Mr. Mahesh Narayan Parbat ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA ORAL ORDER 7 09-12-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsels for the respondent nos. 2 and 3,9 and the State. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated

15.1.2011 passed by Sub Judge-V, Siwan in T. S.No. 68/2003 by which he has rejected the petition dated 17.7.2010 filed on behalf Patna High Court CWJC No.6622 of 2011 (7) dt.09-12-2013 of the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. T.S. No. 68/2003 had been filed by respondent No. 1 against the other private respondents as defendants praying for a declaration that the ex-parte decree passed in Title Suit No. 220/1995 is void, fraudulent and without jurisdiction and not binding on the plaintiffs having been obtained by the defendants by forgery and fabrication and for other reliefs. The petitioner appeared in the said suit and filed a petition on 17.7.2010 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC for being made a defendant in the said suit as his interest was involved in the suit since he was also one of the sons of Late Surendra Giri who was one of the defendants and had died during the pendency of the suit, after which while other heirs and legal representatives had been substituted in his place, the petitioner, who claims to be one of the sons, was not substituted. Upon hearing the parties, the learned Sub Judge- V, Siwan rejected the petition by relying upon certain documents including the bail bond dated 11.5.2005. The aforesaid bail bond dated 11.5.2005 executed by the petitioner has also been brought on the record by the respondents in which the petitioner has declared the name of Patna High Court CWJC No.6622 of 2011 (7) dt.09-12-2013 his father as Shri Ram Dayal Sah. In the aforesaid view of the matter, this Court, which in writ jurisdiction does not sit in appeal over the orders of the courts below in civil suit, sees no reason to interfere with the impugned order as it does not appear to suffer from any perversity or illegality. It needs to be reiterated that recourse to the writ jurisdiction of this Court, which has become available on account of the further narrowing down of the revisional jurisdiction, cannot be wider than the jurisdiction earlier available. The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J) S.Pandey/-