✦ High Court of India

…..... Jeewan Prasad Singh, aged about 61 years, Son of late Rajeshwari Prasad Singh v. 1. Parvesh Singh @ Ram Pravesh Singh, son of late Jagdish Singh. 2. Kalawati

Case Details

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No.181 of 2024 …..... Jeewan Prasad Singh, aged about 61 years, Son of late Rajeshwari Prasad Singh, Resident of Hamidganj Near Surya Mandir Road, Daltonganj, PO & PS Daltonganj, District Palamau, Jharkhand. .... Defendant No.3/Petitioner Versus 1. Parvesh Singh @ Ram Pravesh Singh, son of late Jagdish Singh. 2. Kalawati Devi, wife of late Birendra Prasad Singh. 3. Laxmi Kuer, Wife of Late Sanjay Kumar Singh. 4. Yashraj Singh, Son of Late Sanjay Kumar Singh. 5. Diya Kumari, Daughter of Late Sanjay Kumar Singh. 6. Ajay Kumar Singh, Son of Late Birendra Prasad Singh. 7. Renu Devi, Wife of Pravesh Kumar Singh. 8. Gaurav Pratik, Son of Pravesh Kumar Singh. 9. Chandra Prakash, Son of Pravesh Kumar Singh. 10. Pranay Kumar Singh, Son of Pravesh Kumar Singh.

Legal Reasoning

11. Smt. Kapil Devi, Wife of Baleshwari Prasad Singh. 12. Arbind Singh @ Arbind Kumar Singh, Son of Baleshwari Singh. 13. Ram Singhasan Singh, Son of Late Sureshwari Singh @ Bali Singh. (1) to (13) all resident of Mohalla Hamidganj, At P.O. & P.S. Daltonganj, District - Palamau, Jharkhand. …... …..... Plaintiffs / Respondents 14. Surendra Prasad Singh, Son of Late Narbadeshwar Singh, residents of Mohalla Hamidganj, At P.O. & P.S. Daltonganj, District Palamau, Jharkhand. 15. Poonam Devi @ Poonam Singh, Wife of Late Vishwa Pratap Singh. 16. Surya Pratap Singh, Son of Late Vishwa Pratap Singh. 17. Suryansh Pratap Singh, Son of Late Vishwa Pratap Singh. (15) to (17) all resident of Mohalla Chairman Road, P.O. & P.S. Daltonganj, District Daltonganj, Jharkhand. 18. Smt. Kalawati Devi, Wife of Late Rajendra Prasad Singh, Village Kajpa, P.O. Jakhim, Aurangabad (Bihar). 19. Shakuntala Devi, Wife of Late Pratap Nath Sahdeo, resident of Village Kamtagarh, At and P.O. - Chandwa, District - Latehar, Jharkhand. 20. Prem Lata Kuer, Wife of Late Akhilesh Singh. 21. Mantu Singh, Son of Late Akhilesh Singh. 22. Pintu Singh, Son of Late Akhilesh Singh. 23. Santu Singh, Son of Late Akhilesh Singh. 24. Nagmanti Kuer, Wife of Late Mithilesh Prasad Singh. 25. Rakesh Singh, Son of Late Mithilesh Prasad Singh. 26. Manish Singh, Son of Late Mithilesh Prasad Singh. 27. Kamlesh Singh, Son of Late Gupteshwar Singh. 28. Lila Kuer, Wife of Late Shailesh Singh. 29. Satish Kumar Singh, Son of Late Shailesh Singh. 30. Sarvesh Kumar Singh, Son of Late Shailesh Singh. 31. Aditya Kumar Singh, Son of Late Shailesh Singh. (20) to (31) all resident of Village Mirzapur, P.O. & P.S. Mirzapur, District Augangabad (Bihar). 32. Sanjay Singh, Son of Late Rabi Singh, resident of Mohalla Abadganj, P.O. & P.S. Daltonganj, District - Daltonganj, Jharkhand. 33. Purnima Singh, Daughter of Late Rabi Singh, resident of C/o D.N. Singh, Plot No. 8/3, Block B, N.G. Enclave Maharam Toli, Behind Medical Hospital, Bariyatu, Ranchi, Jharkhand. 34. Hari Kishore Singh, Son of Late Ram Kishore Singh. 35. Laxman Singh, Son of Late Ram Kishore Singh. 36. Bharat Singh, Son of Late Ram Kishore Singh. 37. Bimla Devi, Daughter of Late Ram Kishore Singh. 38. Geeta Devi, Daughter of Late Ram Kishore Singh. 39. Manisha Devi, Daughter of Late Ram Kishore Singh. (34) to (39) all resident of Barkadih, P.O. Alampur, P.S.Sasaram, District Rohtas, Bihar. ….. …...Defendants/Proforma Respondents -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND ------ For the Petitioner For the Respondent No.6 : Mr. Ayush Aditya, Advocate : Mr. Niraj Kishore, Advocate Mrs. Shoba Rani, Advocate -------- 2 07/18.10.2024 On behalf of petitioner learned counsel Mr. Ayush Aditya and on behalf of respondent no.6 learned counsel Mr. Niraj Kishore are present. 2. By way of this civil miscellaneous petition, the order dated 05.02.2024 has been assailed whereby the petitioner/opposite party in Misc. Case No. 03 of 2021 was refused to cross-examine the applicant witness and the miscellaneous suit was fixed for argument. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the partition suit was pending before the court below. In that partition suit, the injunction order was passed by the learned court below and same was alleged to have been violated. Consequently, the proceeding under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure were initiated on behalf of plaintiff of partition suit which was registered as Misc. Case No. 03 of 2021. 4. In that Misc. Case No.3 of 2021, the petitioner being opposite party appeared filed objection and the evidence was also adduced on behalf of applicant/plaintiff. In that case, the petitioner/opposite party was deprived from the opportunity of cross-examine the applicant witness and the case was fixed for and no opportunity was given to the opposite party to adduce the evidence and case was fixed for argument. 5. The learned counsel for opposite party/plaintiff of partition suit has submitted that in the proceeding under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC which was registered as Misc. Case No.03 of 2021 was initiated by the plaintiff and the opposite party/defendant who is petitioner herein was also given opportunity of filing objection. The objections were also filed and the evidence was adduced on behalf of applicant in regard to breach of the injunction order in partition suit. 3 6. Since several opportunity was given to the opposite party in Miscellaneous Case No. 03 of 2021 but he did not avail the same and hence the opportunity was closed to cross-examine the applicant witness. 7. So far as the opposite party no.2 is concerned for not giving the opportunity to file the evidence though in the impugned order dated 05.02.2024 it was directly fixed for the argument yet the learned court below subsequently has rectified the mistake and fixed the Miscellaneous Case No.03 of 2021 for evidence of opposite party. 8. To this effect, the counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no.6 and order of the court below is annexed therein in which the previous order dated 05.02.2024 was rectified and case was fixed for the evidence of opposite party. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that from the impugned order he was aggrieved on the ground that the petitioner was not given opportunity by the court below of adducing evidence in defence and he was also deprived from cross-examine the applicant witness. 10. From the very perusal of the impugned order dated 05.02.2024, it is found that the petitioner who was the opposite party of Miscellaneous Case No. 03 of 2021 was given several opportunity to cross-examine the applicant witness but he did not avail the same. Consequently the opportunity was closed. To this extent, the impugned order bears no infirmity or illegality. 11. By way of impugned order depriving the petitioner who was opposite party in Miscellaneous Case No. 03 of 2021 from adducing defense evidence and fixing the same for argument is concerned. The very mistake 4 has been rectified by the court below by passing the order dated 06.05.2024 which is being annexed with the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.6. As such the very grievance of the petitioner depriving him from adducing the defense evidence has been rectified by the court below by passing the order dated 06.05.2024 as such the petitioner has ample opportunity to file defense evidence in Miscellaneous Case No. 03 of 2021. 12. In view of the above, this civil miscellaneous petition is

Decision

disposed of with the effect that the petitioner shall adduce defense evidence in Miscellaneous Case No.03 of 2021 before the learned court below and the court below shall give the fresh opportunity to the applicant of Miscellaneous Case No. 03 of 2021 to cross-examine if any the defense witness and it is made clear if on the date fixed before the court below the petitioner fails to adduce the defense evidence in Miscellaneous Case No. 03 of 2021 the opportunity of the same shall be deemed closed. 13. of. 14. RKM Accordingly this civil miscellaneous petition stands disposed I.A., if any, also stands disposed of. (Subhash Chand, J.) 5

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments