Ram Kripal Yadav & Ors vs Ram Babu Yadav & Ors on 19 March, 2015

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Patna High Court

Ram Kripal Yadav & Ors vs Ram Babu Yadav & Ors on 19 March, 2015

Bench: Rajendra Kumar Mishra

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

                       Miscellaneous Appeal No.418 of 2009
===========================================================
1. Ram Kripal Yadav, son of Late Sitai Yadav.
2. Shripal Yadav, son of Late Sitai Yadav.
3. Jiwachchi Devi, wife of Late Sitai Yadav.
4. Smt. Phulo Devi, wife of Jhapasi Yadav, all 1 to 4 are residents of village-Sirpur
    Dati Tole Tetraha, P.O. Kakana, P.S. Pandaul, District-Madhubani.
5. Smt. Kumari Devi, wife of Ram Sarovar Yadav, resident of village-Gariya, P.O.
    Lohat, P.S. Pandaul, District-Madhubani.
6. Smt. Ruko Devi, wife of Ram Nandan Yadav, resident of village-Mohanpur,
    P.O. Sirpurhati, P.S. Pandaul, District-Madhubani.
7. Smt. Inar Devi, wife of Budhu Yadav, resident of village-Keuta, P.O. Lota, P.S.
    Kaluahi, District-Madhubani.
                                                      .... .... Defendants/Appellants.
                                        Versus
 1. Ram Babu Yadav, son of Late Yogendras Yadav alias Yogi Yadav.
 2. Yamuna Yadav, wife of Late Yogendra Yadav.
 3. Chandra Kala Devi, wife of Late Yogendra Yadav, all 1 to 3 are residents of
    village-Sirpur Dati Tole Tetraha, P.O. Kakana, P.S. Pandaul, District-
    Madhubani.
                                                        .... .... Plaintiffs/Respondents.
===========================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellants :        Mr. Gagandeo Yadav, Advocate.
For the Respondents :       Mr. Prabhash Ranjan, Advocate.
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 19-03-2015
                                    -----------------

                Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the

   Respondents.

               2.    This Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Order

   XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated

   07.07.2009

passed in Partition Suit No.114 of 2005 by the Sub Judge- IV, Madhubani, directing the parties to maintain status quo by disposing of the application dated 01.07.2009 filed on behalf of the plaintiffs-Respondents under Order XXXIX Rule 1, 2 of the Code of Patna High Court MA No.418 of 2009 dt.19-03-2015 2/2 Civil Procedure and allowing the amendment application filed on their behalf on 01.07.2009.

3. It appears that the plaintiffs-Respondents filed Partition Suit No.114 of 2005 against the defendants-appellants for the partition of 3/10th share. During the pending of the aforesaid Partition Suit, plaintiffs-Respondents filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1, 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure restraining the defendants- appellants for raising construction on 01.07.2009. The learned Sub Judge-IV, Madhubani, on hearing the application filed on behalf of the plantiffs-Respondents on 01.07.2009 ordered to maintain status quo and disposed of the injunction application accordingly and also allowed the amendment application filed on their behalf subject to the payment of cost of Rs.500/- through the impugned order.

4. I find no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order. Accordingly, this Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) P.S./-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Patna High Court