2025:JHHC:10613 -1- C.M.P. No. 882 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 882 of 2023 Jayashree Nair, aged about 58 years, wife of Mahesh Nair, resident of Village Dhaiya, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District- Dhanbad, Jharkhand, at present residing at Village Rangamati, P.O. Chandrapura, District- Bokaro, Jharkhand … Petitioner -Versus- 1. Sreedevi Soman, wife of Soman Kuttan Nair, resident of Chennathu House, Velamchuzhi, P.O. & P.S. Pathanamthitta, District- Kerala, Pin- 689645 2. Sree Ranjini S. Pillai, wife of Siva Raman Pillai, resident of Kuzhuvelil, Kaimal House, Velamchuzhi, Malassery, P.O. & P.S. Pathanamthitta, District- Kerala, Pin- 689645 3. Sree Kumari Nair P., wife of K.R. Mohan Sreerengam, resident of Puthenpeedika, Omallour, P.O. & P.S. Pathanamthitta, District- Kerala, Pin- 689645 4. Sarojini Kunjamma, wife of U.K. Nair, daughter of Late Janaky Kundamma, resident of Shree Vilas House, Dhaiya, Mandal Basti, P.O. ISM, near Lakhi Mandir, Dhaiya, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District- Dhanbad, Jharkhand … Opposite Parties ----- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumir Prasad, Advocate For O.P. Nos. 1 to 3 : Mrs. Apoorva Singh, Advocate ----- 05/07.04.2025 Heard Mr. Sumir Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs. Apoorva Singh, learned counsel appearing for opposite party nos. 1 to 3, who has been appointed in this case by the Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee, Ranchi. 2. Notice upon opposite party no.4 has already been effected, however, nobody has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.4. 3. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying therein to set-aside the order dated 14.03.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-IV, Dhanbad in M.C.A. No.67 of 2023 arising out of Original Suit No.108 of 2022, whereby, the petition filed under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the CPC by the plaintiff has been allowed by the learned Court. 2025:JHHC:10613 -2- C.M.P. No. 882 of 2023 4. Mr. Sumir Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not made party in the said original suit and subsequently, the said petition has been filed, which has been allowed by the learned Court without issuing notice to the petitioner herein. He submits that the petitioner has received the land in question from her mother. He submits that in view of that, the said order has been illegally passed and that may kindly be set-aside. 5. Mrs. Apoorva Singh, learned counsel appearing for opposite party nos. 1 to 3 submits that the suit has been instituted for possession and ownership and in course of the proceeding, written statement has been filed on behalf of defendant no.1 disclosing that she has sold the property to the daughter and in view of that, the said petition has been filed and the learned Court has rightly allowed the said petition. She submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order. 6. In view of the above, it transpires that the land in question is in possession of the petitioner herein and the dispute is with regard to the said land for which right, title and interest has been prayed in the said original suit. If such a situation is there, the petitioner is a necessary party. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts, the Court finds that there is no illegality in the impugned order and, as such, this petition is dismissed. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Ajay/