Jharkhand High Court
Shyam Deo Kewat vs Govind Kewat on 11 April, 2018
Author: Shree Chandrashekhar
Bench: Shree Chandrashekhar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 6666 of 2011
---
1.Shyam Deo Kewat, son of late Gudu Mal Kewat
2.Ram Deo Kewat, son of late Gudu Mal Kewat
3.Jhunu Devi, wife of late Manoj Kewat
4.Chanchala Kumari, daughter of late Manoj Kewat
5.Babita Devi, wife of late Kundan Kewat
6.Kajal Kumari, daughter of late Kundan Kewat
7.Laxmi Kumari, daughter of late Kundan Kewat
8.Somari Devi, wife of late Gudumal Kewat All resident of Saram, PO+PS-Gomia, District-Bokaro ..... .... Petitioners
--Versus--
1.Govind Kewat, son of late Foko Kewat
2.Ruplal Kewat, son of Hazari Kewat
3.Bimali Devi, wife of late Chetlal Kewat
4.Kishore Kewat
5.Ganeshwa Kewat
6.Dinesh Kewat
7.Mahesh Kewat
8.Manta Kumar Nos.4 to 8 are sons of late Chetlal Kewat
9.Mohan Kewat, son of Hazari Kewat
10.Sunil Kewat, son of late Ram Prasad Kewat Nos.1 to 11 are resident of Saram,PO+PS-Gomia, District-Bokaro
11.Most. Kamla Devi, wife of late Punam Chand Jain
12.Hans Raj Singh, son of late Punam Chand Jain
13.Gajraj Jain, son of late Punam Chand Jain
14.Dilip Chand Jain, son of late Punam Chand Jain
15.Pradeep Chand Jai, son of late Punam Chand Jain
16.Lalit Chand Jain, son of late Punam Chand Jain
17.Lalit Chand Jain, son of late Punam Chand Jain Nos.11 to 17 resident of village-Saram, PO+PS-Gomia, District-Bokaro, A/P Nemi Sagar Colony, Queen's Road, Baishaili Nagar, At+PO-Baishalinagar, PS-Jaipur, District- Jaipur(Rajasthan)
18.Anjana Devi Jain, w/o late Nemi Chand Jain, D/O Late Punam Chand Jain, resident of -C/o Pankaj Kumar, Deepak Kr.Jain of Wakli Wall, at and PO-Durga, Gandhin Chouk, PS-Durg, District-Durg (Chhatisgarh)
19.Manju Devi Jain, w/o Praveen Kumar Jain, d/o late Punam Chan Jain, resident of 608 Kailash Puri, Back Shiv Mandir, PO-Mukul Sarai, PS-Mukul Sarai, District-Mukul Sarai (U.P)
20.Most Dukhani Devi, wife of late Chhotan Kewat
21.Ghanshyam Kewat, son of late Chhotan Kewat
22.Shyam Sundar Kewat, son of late Chhotan Kewat
23.Sanju Kewat, son of late Chhotan Kewat
24.Sagar Kewat, son of late Chhotan Kewat Nos.20 to 24 are residents of Saram, PO+PS-Gomia, District-Bokaro 2
25.Sabitri Devi, wife of Budhu Kewat, d/o Chhotan Kewat, resident of village-Chilgada, PO+PS-Jaridih, District- Bokaro
26.Padam Devi, wife of late Mahabir Kewat, d/o Chhotan Kewat, resident of village-Balidih, PO+PS-Balidih, District- Bokaro
27.Munwa Devi, wife of Sudar Kewat, d/o Chhotan Kewat, resident of village-Balidih, PO+PS-Balidih, District-Bokaro
28.Bhim Kewat, son of late Shyam Lal Kewat
29.Jitu Kewat, son of late Shyam Lal Kewat
30.Babu Kewat, son of late Shyam Lal Kewat
31.Pani Devi, daughter of Late Shyam Lal Kewat
32.Sunita Devi, daughter of late Shyam Lal Kewat
33.Muni Kumari, daughter of late Shyam Lal Kewat
34.Indu Devi, wife of late Shyam Lal Kewat, Nos.28 to 34 are resident of villge-Seram, PO+PS- Gomia, District-Bokaro .... ..... Respondents
---
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
---
For the Petitioners : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate
For the Respondents : ---
---
4/ 11.04.2018 The petitioners are aggrieved of order
dated 29.04.2011 passed in Misc. Case No.3 of 2006 by which an application under Order IX Rule 4 CPC has been rejected.
2. Petitioners are the plaintiffs in Title Partition Suit No.32 of 1995. When the plaintiffs did not appear on several dates and their counsel made an endorsement on the order-sheet on 04.07.2002 and 19.08.2002 that he has got no instructions, on 17.12.2002 the suit was dismissed in default. Order IX Rule 4 CPC provides that where a suit is dismissed under Rule 3, where neither party had appeared when the suit was called on for hearing, subject to the law of limitation the plaintiff may bring a fresh suit or may apply for an order to set the order of dismissal aside. The petitioners have pleaded that 3 only on 03.08.2006 they came to know about the dismissal of title partition suit. However, during the trial in Misc.
Case No.3 of 2006 which was registered on the application under Order IX Rule 4 CPC, the witnesses examined by the applicants did not support their stand. The trial Judge has found that the petitioners actively participated in the trial of Title Partition Suit No.32 of 1995, more particularly, the petitioner- Ram Deo Kewat was present in the Court on 18.01.2004 and 02.10.2004 and the petitioner-Manoj Kewat was present on 11.09.2004 in the court.
3. Apparently, a false plea was taken by the petitioners for restoration of Title Partition Suit No.32 of 1995.
4. Once it is found that the petitioners have taken a false plea in the judicial proceeding, challenge to the impugned order dated 29.04.2011 passed in Misc.
Case No.3 of 2006 must fail.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) SI/,