RANCHI, India, July 28 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on June 30:

1. The petitioners are the defendants against whom Original Partition Suit No. 14/1996 was decreed vide judgment dated 23.06.2003 and decree dated 14.07.2003.

2. Against the said judgment and decree Title Appeal No. 13/2003 was preferred by the Petitioners which got dismissed on 21.09.2004.

3. The Second Appeal arising out of the same was also dismissed on 20.06.2009 by this Court in Second Appeal No. 611 of 2004.

4. The petitioners/defendants moved to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.C. No. 8602 of 2013 which also got dismissed on 22.04.2013.

5. The plaintiffs have still not received the fruits of the decree and this writ petition has been filed in 2018 by the defendants/judgment debtors with a prayer that the order dated 20.02.2018 passed in Misc. Case No. 18/2016 arising out of Original Partition Suit No. 14/1996 for preparation of final decree be dismissed.

6. In effect, after the preliminary decree has attained finality, the petitioners seek to challenge the drawing of final decree.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the plaintiffs are not the coparceners and the heirs and descendants of the joint family. The genealogy, which the petitioners claim and is part of the preliminary decree, is not correct. It is further submitted that Chaturi Mahto is not the coparcener and has no share in the joint family property. Learned counsel for the petitioners has produced certain documents in support of his contention.

8. The main contention of the petitioners is that the plaintiffs-respondents by misleading the Court on genealogy of the parties have obtained the decree. In this regard, reference is made to the certified copy of Register-II to dispute the genealogy in the preliminary decree.

9. It is argued that the Judgment and decree were obtained by playing fraud.

10. The matter for consideration is when the judgment and preliminary decree in a partition suit has attained finality, can it be assailed to have been obtained by fraud, by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court?

11. Answer can be an emphatic no.

12. It is surprising that after the preliminary decree has attained its finality, the defendants have invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the Judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Genealogy constitutes parts of the decree which has been affirmed in appeal; therefore, this issue cannot be reopened.

13. In any case, after the judgment and decree has attained finality, the same cannot be assailed on ground of it being vitiated by fraud in the execution proceeding.

14. Learned Trial Court has by a detailed order and by assigning sufficient reason has rightly dismissed the application of the petitioners.

15. This is yet another frivolous piece of litigation, challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court which has attained finality up-to the Hon'ble Apex Court. In such circumstance, this writ petition is not, at all, maintainable. Writ petition stands dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/-. Pending

I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.