Jharkhand High Court
Arun Kumar Sen vs Mukti Prakash Thakur on 19 August, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
2025:JHHC:24515
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
C. M. P. No.1263 of 2023
1.Arun Kumar Sen
2.Ujjawal Kr. Sen
Both Sons of Late Nagendra Nath Sen, R/o Village- Beliadih, PO &
PS- Masalia, District- Dumka, Jharkhand.
.... .. ... Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. Mukti Prakash Thakur
2. Gyan Prakash Thakur
3. Sachidanand Thakur
4. Biswajeet Thakur
All sons of Late Prabhash Ranjan Thakur, R/o Gyanda Cinema
Road, Babupara, Dumka, PO & PS- Dumka Town, District-
Dumka.
5. Arunima Nandita Sen, W/o Sirajuddin, R/o Gilanpara, Dumka, PO
& PS- Dumka Town, District- Dumka.
6. Madhurina Das, W/o Alok Das, R/o Kumharpara, Dumka, PO &
PS- Dumka Town, District- Dumka. .. ... ...Opp. Party(s)
...........
CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY .........
For the Petitioner(s) :Mr. Niraj Kishore, Advocate Mrs. Shobha Rani, Advocate For the O. P(s). : Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate ......Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate 06/ 19.08.2025. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
1. Performa defendant nos.3 and 4/ petitioners are before this Court against the order dated 15.06.2023 passed in Title Suit No.11/2015 whereby and whereunder the application for transposition under Order I Rule 10 read with Order XXIII Rule 1A of the CPC, has been dismissed.
2. Plaintiffs/opposite parties no.1 to 4 instituted Title Suit No.11 of 2015, impleading the present petitioners as proforma defendant no.3 and 4. The suit is filed for the following reliefs:
a. A decree for declaration that the defendants are not successors of the couple (Sanatan Sen, his widow) and they are imposters and got no right to dispose of the suit properties. b. A decree for declaration that the plaintiff pro forma Defendant only are successors of the aforesaid couple (Sanatan Sen) his widow & their estate the suit property.1
2025:JHHC:24515
3. The suit was contested by the proforma defendants/ petitioners and in para 17 of the Written statement, averment was made for dismissing the suit.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of petitioners that the plaintiffs and present petitioners are heirs and descendants of Sanatan Sen, who is recorded tenant of the suit property. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs have entered into an agreement with the contesting defendants and have abandoned the suit. In this view of matter, the petition for transposition was filed, which has been rejected.
5. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides, it need to be appreciated that the basic requirement for exercise of power under Order XXIII Rule 1A CPC would be to examine if plaintiff is seeking to withdraw or to abandon his claim under Order XXIII Rule 1A CPC and defendant seeking transposition is having an interest in subject matter of suit and thereby a substantial question to be adjudicated against other defendants.
6. In the present case, as noted above, the petitioners had contested the plaintiff's suit and sought its dismissal. In this backdrop, I find substance in the submission advanced on behalf of the opposite parties that the petitioners' pleadings being at variance with those of the plaintiffs, their transposition as plaintiffs would inevitably result in inconsistent and contradictory pleadings.
7. Under the circumstance I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order.
Civil miscellaneous petition, accordingly, stands dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sandeep/-
2