Patna High Court - Orders
Raj Kishore Singh & Ors. vs Upendra Singh & Ors. on 9 July, 2014
Author: Kishore Kumar Mandal
Bench: Kishore Kumar Mandal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Second Appeal No.53 of 2014
======================================================
1. Raj Kishore Singh Son Of Late Bindeshwari Singh
2. Sanjeev Kumar Son Of Raj Kishore Singh
3. Sushant Kumar @ Lav Kumar
4. Prasant Kumar @ Kush Kumar Nos. 3 And 4 Twin Minor Sons Of
Sanjeev Kumar Under The Guardianship Of Their Father All Residents Of
Village - Harpura, Police Station Bikram, Post Office Mehamadpur, District
- Patna
.... .... Appellant/s
Versus
1. Upendra Singh
2. Kamalesh Singh
3. Dharanjay Singh All Sons Of Ramanak Singh
4. Jaisant Kumar Son Of Upendra Singh
5. Sujeet Kumar
6. Sumeet Kumar Nos. 5 And 6 Minor Sons Of Dhananjay Singh Under
The Guardianship Of Their Father All Residents Of Village - Harpura,
Police Station Bikram, Post Office Mehamadpur, District - Patna
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Rabindra Nath Dubey
For the Respondent/s : Mr.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL
ORAL ORDER
2 09-07-2014Heard learned counsel for the appellants.
The plaint filed by the plaintiff-respondent was rejected by the learned Trial Court under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff filed appeal. The same was allowed by the judgment and order under appeal passed by the learned Additional District Judge-III, Danapur and the matter was remitted to the learned Trial Court to frame issues and permit the parties to lead evidence on these issues and thereafter render the judgment. Aggrieved by the Patna High Court SA No.53 of 2014 (2) dt.09-07-2014 2 aforesaid judgment and order passed by the learned Lower Appellate Court, the defendants have filed the present appeal.
The Office has pointed out that the appeal against the aforesaid judgment passed by the learned Lower Appellate Court is not maintainable.
In my view, the Office is right in raising the said objection. The objection of the office is upheld.
The appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.
(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) Pankaj/-
U