RANCHI, India, June 4 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on May 5:

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the Opposite party nos.1 to 10 and 11 to 17 respectively.

2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 22.05.2023 passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division-XVIII, Giridih, in Original Title Suit No.122 of 2017/ Original Suit No.1368 of 2019 whereby the learned court has been pleased to reject the petition filed under Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC as the petitioner is having interest in the suit property and the learned court has wrongly dismissed the same.

3. Learned counsel for the Opposite party nos.1 to 10 submits that the learned court has rightly passed the order and the petitioner herein is not the defendant. He further submits that even the Opposite party nos.11 to 17 are not defendants and unnecessarily they have been made the Opposite party in the present CMP. He submits that nothing has been shown before the learned court to suggest that the petitioner is having interest in the suit property and as such the leaned court has rightly passed the said order.

4. From the impugned order it transpires that the learned court has found that the plaintiff has filed the suit to the effect of right, title and possession over the land in question disclosing the some desperate type of persons of the locality, namely, Sahdeo Mahto, Annu Mahto, Jagdish Mahto all sons of late Cholo Mahato, Prakash Yadav, son of Annu Mahto, Dwarika Yada son of Lato Mahto all residents of Village Keshwari, PS Sariya, District Giridih have been trying to construct house over the portion of the suit lands and later on they have constructed house over the same during the pendency of the suit and have denied the title of the plaintiff and the plaintiff has further filed the same petition under Order I Rule 10 CPC and the learned court has found that nothing has been disclosed before the learned court to suggest that the persons who are said to be defendants are having any interest in the property or any construction has been made thereon.

5. The Court finds that if that finding is there and nothing further demonstrated before this Court to suggest that any construction has been made by the proposed proforma defendants and as such, there is no illegality in the impugned order. Hence, this petition is dismissed.

6. Pending petition, if any, also stands disposed of.

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.