Patna High Court - Orders
Surendra Pd.Singh vs Yogesh Mandal & Ors on 8 December, 2014
Author: Hemant Kumar Srivastava
Bench: Hemant Kumar Srivastava
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13615 of 2010
======================================================
Surendra Pd. Singh S/O Late Raghu Singh R/O New Chouk Kursela, P.S.-
Kursela, Distt.- Katihar
.... .... Petitioner.
Versus
1. Yogesh Mandal S/O Baijnath Mandal R/O New Chouk Kursela, P.S.-
Kursela, Distt.- Katihar
2. Baijnath Mandal S/O Darogi Mandal R/O New Chouk Kursela, P.S.-
Kursela, Distt.- Katihar
3. Binda Singh S/O Late Guljar Singh R/O Vill.- Harpur Fatikbara, P.S.
Mahnar, Distt.- Vaishali
4. Suresh Pd. Singh S/O Late Guljar Singh R/O Vill.- Harpur Fatikbara, P.S.
Mahnar, Distt.- Vaishali
5. Shivajee Pd. Singh S/O Late Guljar Singh R/O Vill.- Harpur Fatikbara,
P.S. Mahnar, Distt.- Vaishali
6. Sri Awadhesh Singh S/O Late Jai Mangal Singh R/O Vill.- Harpur
Fatikbara, P.S. Mahnar, Distt.- Vaishali
7. Sri Sachidanand Singh S/O Late Jai Mangal Singh R/O Vill.- Harpur
Fatikbara, P.S. Mahnar, Distt.- Vaishali
8. Sri Gopal Singh S/O Late Jai Mangal Singh R/O Vill.- Harpur Fatikbara,
P.S. Mahnar, Distt.- Vaishali
9. Sri Vinay Kumar Singh S/O Late Girish Nandan Singh R/O Vill.- Harpur
Fatikbara, P.S. Mahnar, Distt.- Vaishali
10. Sri Rajeev Kumar Singh S/O Late Girish Nandan Singh R/O Vill.-
Harpur Fatikbara, P.S. Mahnar, Distt.- Vaishali
11. Sri Arun Kumar Singh S/O Late Girish Nandan Singh R/O Vill.- Harpur
Fatikbara, P.S. Mahnar, Distt.- Vaishali
12. Most. Bageshwari Kunwar Widow Of Late Satrughan Pd. Singh R/O
Vill.- Harpur Fatikbara, P.S. Mahnar, Distt.- Vaishali
13. Chandra Shekhar Singh S/O Late Ramashish Singh R/O Vill.- Harpur
Fatikbara, P.S. Mahnar, Distt.- Vaishali
14. Ramesh Singh S/O Late Ramashish Singh R/O Vill.- Harpur Fatikbara,
P.S. Mahnar, Distt.- Vaishali
15. Most. Rama Devi Widow Of Late Ram Lakhan Singh R/O Vill.- Harpur
Fatikbara, P.S. Mahnar, Distt.- Vaishali
16. Akhilesh Singh S/O Late Ram Lakhan Singh R/O Vill.- Harpur
Fatikbara, P.S. Mahnar, Distt.- Vaishali
17. Amrendra Singh S/O Late Ram Lakhan Singh R/O Vill.- Harpur
Fatikbara, P.S. Mahnar, Distt.- Vaishali
18. Kishore Singh S/O Late Ram Lakhan Singh R/O Vill.- Harpur
Fatikbara, P.S. Mahnar, Distt.- Vaishali
19. Mukesh Singh S/O Late Ram Lakhan Singh R/O Vill.- Harpur
Fatikbara, P.S. Mahnar, Distt.- Vaishali
20. Most. Lalpari Devi Widow Of Late Ameer Singh R/O Vill.- Harpur
Fatikbara, P.S. Mahnar, Distt.- Vaishali
21. Rabindra Kr. Singh S/O Late Ameer Singh R/O Vill.- Harpur Fatikbara,
P.S. Mahnar, Distt.- Vaishali
22. Devendra Kr. Singh S/O Late Ameer Singh R/O Vill.- Harpur Fatikbara,
P.S. Mahnar, Distt.- Vaishali
23. Tapeshwar Pd. Singh S/O Late Thagan Singh R/O Vill.- Harpur
Fatikbara, P.S. Mahnar, Distt.- Vaishali
Patna High Court CWJC No.13615 of 2010 (8) dt.08-12-2014
2/6
24. Braj Nandan Singh S/O Late Raghu Singh R/O New Chouk Kursela,
P.S.- Kursela, Distt.- Katihar
25. Chaturbhuj Singh S/O Late Hari Kishore Singh R/O New Chouk
Kursela, P.S.- Kursela, Distt.- Katihar
26. Ashok Singh S/O Late Hari Krishna Singh R/O New Chouk Kursela,
P.S.- Kursela, Distt.- Katihar
27. Gajendra Singh S/O Late Hari Krishna Singh R/O New Chouk Kursela,
P.S.- Kursela, Distt.- Katihar
28. Narvind Singh S/O Late Jagdish Singh R/O Vill.- Harpur Fatikwara,
P.S. Mahnar, Distt.- Vaishali
29. Satyendra Singh S/O Late Jagdish Singh R/O Vill.- Harpur Fatikwara,
P.S. Mahnar, Distt.- Vaishali
30. Fulo Singh S/O Late Jagdish Singh R/O Vill.- Harpur Fatikwara, P.S.
Mahnar, Distt.- Vaishali
31. Kedar Singh R/O Vill.- Harpur Fatikwara, P.S. Mahnar, Distt.- Vaishali
32. Bachchu Singh R/O Vill.- Harpur Fatikwara, P.S. Mahnar, Distt.-
Vaishali
.... .... Respondents.
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Shashi Shekhar Dvivedi, Sr. Adv.
Sangeeta Sharma, Adv.
Ranjan Kumar Dubey, Adv.
Rakesh Chandra, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
8 08-12-2014Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appears on behalf of the respondents on repeated call.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 06-05- 2010 passed by Subordinate Judge-I, Katihar in Title Suit No. 83 of 2002 by which and whereunder, he reviewed his own order dated 19-01-2009 and impleaded the respondents No. 1 & 2 as party to the Title Suit No. 83 of 2002.
It is an admitted position that respondents No. 1 & 2 filed a petition under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC sometime in the year 2006, to implead themselves as party to the Title Suit No. 83 of 2002 on the ground that they had purchased some plots. At the Patna High Court CWJC No.13615 of 2010 (8) dt.08-12-2014 3/6 time of filing of the aforesaid petition under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC, the plots, said to have been purchased by the respondents No. 1 & 2, were not subject matter of Title Suit No. 83 of 2002 but during pendency of the aforesaid petition, the plaintiff included the above-said purchased plots of respondents No. 1 & 2 in the plaint through amendment and the concerned court permitted to include the above-said plots in the plaint but rejected the petition filed under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC vide order dated 19-01- 2009, which was challenged before this court in Civil Revision No. 620 of 2009. This court while passing the order dated 22-04- 2009 in Civil Revision No. 620 of 2009, gave a liberty to the respondents No. 1 & 2 to file a review petition before the concerned court for review of order dated 19-01-2009 and in pursuance to the aforesaid direction of this court, the respondents No. 1 & 2 filed review petition before learned trial court and accordingly, passing impugned order dated 06-05-2010, the learned trial court reviewed its own order dated 19-01-2009 and permitted the respondents No. 1 & 2 to be impleaded as party to the Title Suit No. 83 of 2002.
The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that admittedly, when the petition under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC was filed, the so-called plots said to have been purchased by respondents No. 1 & 2, were not subject matter of Title Suit No. Patna High Court CWJC No.13615 of 2010 (8) dt.08-12-2014 4/6 83 of 2002 but subsequently, at the time of passing order dated 19- 01-2009, the said plots had already been included in the plaint but as per settled principle of law, the learned trial court ought to have considered the materials, available on the record on the date of filing of above-said petition under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC. He further submits that no doubt, this court granted liberty to respondents No. 1 & 2 to file review petition against the order dated 19-01-2009 but this court never directed the concerned court to proceed against the law rather this court directed the trial court to proceed with the petition of review in according with law, if, any review petition is filed. He further submits that review petition filed on behalf of the respondents No. 1 & 2 was not maintainable because admittedly, at the time of filing of petition under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC, the plots, said to have been purchased by respondents No. 1 & 2, were not subject matter of the Title Suit No. 83 of 2002.
Having heard the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, I went through the record.
Admittedly, when in the year, 2006, a petition under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC was filed, the plots, which are said to have been purchased by respondents No. 1 & 2, were not the subject matter of Title Suit No. 83 of 2002 but subsequently, before passing the order dated 19-01-2009, the above-said plots Patna High Court CWJC No.13615 of 2010 (8) dt.08-12-2014 5/6 had already been included in the plaint through the amendment and, therefore, it is apparent from the aforesaid fact that when the petition under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC was rejected, the plots in question had already become the subject matter of the suit. The grievance of the petitioner is that the learned court below had got no jurisdiction to consider the subsequent events at the time of passing order dated 19-01-2009 but most humbly, I am to say that the court has got power to take note of subsequent events and, therefore, the learned trial court had committed error in rejecting the petition filed under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC while passing the order dated 19-01-2009.
It is also an admitted position that the order dated 19- 01-2009 was challenged by respondents No. 1 & 2 before this court by filing Civil Revision No. 620 of 2009, the concerned respondents which was disposed off by a bench of this court, giving liberty to the petitioners to the above-said Civil Revision No. 620 of 2009 to file a review petition against order dated 19- 01-2009 and in pursuant thereto, the concerned respondents filed an application for review before the court below. It is obvious from the above-said facts and submissions that at the time of passing order dated 19-01-2009, the plots in question had already been included in the plaint and the said plots were subject matter of the Title Suit No. 83 of 2002. So, it is obvious from the Patna High Court CWJC No.13615 of 2010 (8) dt.08-12-2014 6/6 aforesaid facts that the order dated 19-01-2009 was against the pleadings of the plaint and there was apparent error on the face of record. So, in my view, the coordinate bench of this court rightly directed the respondents No. 1 & 2 to file review petition before the learned court below and, therefore, I do not find any illegality or irregularity into the impugned order dated 06-05-2010.
I am unable to accept this contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the court below had no competence to look into the material which came on the record after filing of the petition because it is well settled principle of law that court can take note of any subsequent events while passing the order.
Therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances, this writ petition does not have any merit and, accordingly, stands dismissed on admission stage itself.
(Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J) A.K.V./-
U