Suresh Kumar Suman v. Anju Roy, second
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
This writ application is allowed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 227
Judgment
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ratan Kumar Sinha, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rajeev Kr. Singh, GP15 Mr. Kartik Kumar Sinha, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 6 10-10-2012 Heard Mr. Ratan Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Kartik Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent No.3. The petitioner by way of present application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has questioned the award dated 15.12.2009 of the Permanent Lok Adalat, Vaishali at Hajipur passed in Pre-Litigation Suit No. 434 of 2009 placed at Annexure-3 to the present proceedings. The subject matter of the pre-litigation case is a land bearing Khata No. 375, Plot No. 1725 having an area of 13 ¼ 2 Patna High Court CWJC No.9689 of 2011 (6) dt.10-10-2012 decimals situated in Mohallah- Sanchi PattiWard No.6, Road No. 8 P.S. Hajipur Town, District Vaishali. It is the case of the petitioner that even while a title suit bearing T.S. No.405 of 2007 was pending consideration before the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Vaishali at Hajipur in relation to the same property in between the petitioner and his brothers as plaintiff and their father Nagdeo Rai as defendant, a pre-litigation case was filed by the respondent No.1, who happens to be the second wife of Nagdeo Rai, the father of the petitioner, giving rise to Pre-Litigation Case No. 434 of 2009. In the said Pre-litigation Case a claim was made by the respondent No.1 to declare her title over the property mentioned in the Schedule. A joint compromise petition was filed by the father of the petitioner Nagdeo Rai and the respondent No.1 admitting the position as set out in the pre-litigation application and as a consequence the learned Permanent Lok Adalat, Vaishali at Hajipur by order dated
Operative part
15.12.2009 while recording the compromise disposed of the case. The said award has been questioned in the present proceedings. One of the grounds raised by the petitioner is that pending adjudication of the matter in Title Suit No. 405 of 2007, the Permanent Lok Adalat had exceeded its jurisdiction and the parties to the pre-litigation case had not approached the forum with clean 3 Patna High Court CWJC No.9689 of 2011 (6) dt.10-10-2012 hands when they suppressed this information from the Permanent Lok Adalat. Pursuant to the notice issued, the respondent No.1, Anju Roy who is the applicant in the Pre-litigation Case before the Permanent Lok Adalat, has appeared and has filed a counter affidavit in which she has relinquished her claim in favour of the petitioner and his brothers. In paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit the respondent No.1 has withdrawn her claim over the suit property. While admitting in paragraph 5 that the suit property was purchased by the petitioner, it is admitted by the respondent No.1- Anju Roy that being the second wife of Nagdeo Rai she has no locus standi to claim the property. In view of the statement made by respondent No.1 through her affidavit, there appears to be no contest to the contentions advanced by the petitioner and the natural consequence whereof is that the award dated 15.12.2009 passed in Pre-Litigation Suit No. 434 of 2009 is quashed and set aside. This writ application is allowed. Bibhash/- (Jyoti Saran, J)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: This writ application is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 227.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.