PATNA HIGH COURT ISSUES JUDGEMENT ON SRI PRAKASH V/S ARUN KUMAR ASHANA

PATNA, India, July 7 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on July 1:

The petitioner has preferred the instant civil miscellaneous petition being aggrieved by the order dated 28.08.2024 passed by learned District Judge, Sheohar in LA Case No. 21 of 2004, whereby and whereunder the learned trial court rejected the petition filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short 'the Code').

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that the respondent nos. 1 and 2 filed one LA Case No. 21 of 2004 for granting Letters of Administration in their favour with respect to land bearing S.P. No. 683 under Khata No. 71 area 72 decimals. The aforesaid LA case has been filed on the basis of an unregistered Will dated 17.09.2000 executed by testator Most. Lalit Kishori Devi. The testator was the wife of one Krishna Prasad and her sisters-in-law are Manoranjan Devi and Sarojan Devi and Manoranjan Devi is one of the objectors in the LA case. The father of the petitioner purchased the aforesaid suit land from Manoranjan Devi and got it mutated his name and started paying rent to the Govt. of Bihar. The father of the petitioner died in the year 2022 and thereafter the property was partitioned amongst the brothers of the petitioner and the suit property came into share of the petitioner. The petitioner, who is a Central Government employee, filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code for being impleaded as a party in the aforesaid LA case. The applicants/respondents nos. 1 and 2 filed their objection. The learned trial court, after hearing the parties, dismissed the petition of the intervenor and the said order is under challenge before this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent no. 3 Manoranjan Devi has filed objection in the LA case and has been contesting the matter. But as she has been getting old she was gained over by the applicants/respondents 1st set. The petitioner being a Central Government employee has been posted at different places and performing his duties. For this reason he could not know about pendency of the LA case and only after death of his father when the property came in his share, the petitioner came to know about the litigation. As Manoranjan Devi was neither contesting the LA case nor was having any interest, the petitioner realized that he needs to protect his interest being the purchaser of the land. Manoranjan Devi did not even appear as witness in the case. Her grandson appeared as OPW 5 and recorded his deposition contrary to the objection filed by Manoranjan Devi and this witness rather supported the case of the applicants/respondents. At the same time, he also asserted that Manoranjan Devi would not come to depose before the court. It goes on to show that Manoranjan Devi was totally gained over. However, the learned trial court did not consider this fact and rejected the application of the intervenor-petitioner on erroneous grounds. The learned trial court further failed to take into consideration this fact that the intervenor-petitioner has a right to protect his interest as he has now stepped into shoes of Manoranjan Devi and being a purchaser prior to the filing of the LA case, the petitioner has got every right to contest the case and challenge the genuineness of the Will as the same stand was taken earlier by his vendor Manoranjan Devi. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned trial court committed an error of jurisdiction in passing the impugned order as the intervention application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that it was filed at much belated stage and the vendor is still contesting the case. Learned counsel further submitted that another ground for rejection taken by the learned trial court is that earlier the father of the petitioner filed an application for impleadment which was rejected and the petitioner is claiming his title through his father, but the same is not a valid ground. The said order was not challenged as Manoranjan Devi had been contesting the LA case and interest of the father of the petitioner was being protected but now the situation has changed and facts are sufficient to show that Manoranjan Devi has not been contesting the suit rather she is now favouring the applicants. Learned counsel relied on a decision of learned Single Judge of this Court passed in C.W.J.C. No. 10415 of 2011 dated 30.01.2013 wherein the learned Single Judge upheld the order of the learned trial court by which the learned trial court reviewed its own order in the probate proceedings and added the intervenor as a party though his petition for impleadment was earlier rejected. The intervenor purchased the land from the objector before the probate case was instituted and under such circumstances the learned Single Judge has held that he has a right to protect his interest. On the point of impleadment of a party, learned counsel next referred to a decision of learned Single Judge of this Court dated 05.09.2023 passed in Civil Miscellaneous Jurisdiction No. 1303 of 2018 wherein it has been reiterated that with respect to one subject matter the determination of interest of all the parties shall be done in one suit and thus impleadment petition of respondent no. 1 was allowed and learned Single Jude upheld the order of learned trial court. Learned counsel also referred to a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mumbai International Airport (P) Ltd. Vs. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels (P) Ltd., reported in (2010) 7 SCC 417 about who are the necessary and proper parties. Learned counsel also referred to a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Others, reported in (1992) 2 SCC 524 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the court has judicial discretion which it has to exercise having regard to facts and circumstances of the case and in exercise of this discretion court can direct a plaintiff, though dominus litis, to implead a person as a necessary party defendant. Learned counsel lastly referred to a decision of this Court in Ekta Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Ltd. Patna Vs. The Estate of Late Ram Pancham Singh & Ors., C.W.J.C. No. 16881 of 2011 dated 08.12.2011 submitting that in the similar circumstance, learned Single Judge of this Court held that the petitioner stepped into the shoes of the vendor and he has got interest in the said property and was required to be heard in support of the objection filed by the petitioner predecessor. Thus, learned Single Judge held that the petitioner is a proper party in the proceeding and he should be impleaded as a party by the learned trial court. Thus, learned counsel submitted that the learned trial court did not consider the facts in proper perspective and did not consider the proposition of law propounded by the superior courts and passed an erroneous order which could not be sustained.

The rest of the document can be viewed at https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/NDQjMTA5NSMyMDI0IzEjTg==-ZeEU--am1--YMuXI8=

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.