2025:JHHC:28239 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 1442 of 2023 B.S. Enterprise through its Proprietor (a) Rajender Kaur, W/o Late Bhupinder Singh, (b) Jaspreet Singh, S/o Late Bhupinder Singh and (c) Samneet Kaur Khardori, D/o Late Bhupinder Singh All residents of House No. 69, Road No. 5, Gurudwara Road, Bistupur, P.O. Bistupur, P.S. Bistupur, Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum (Jharkhand) ..... .... Petitioner Versus 1. Tulsi Soren, W/o Late Karan Man Singh Soren 2. Majhi Ram Soren (minor son of Late Karan Man Singh Soren being represented by Tulsi Soren as a natural guardian Both residents of Main Road, Karandih Chowk, P.O. Karandih, P.S. Parsudih, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum (Jharkhand) 3.Smt. Suraj Mani Soren wife of Late Manjhi Ram Soren resident of Main Road, Karandih Chowk, P.O. Karandih, P.S. Parsudih, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum. 4. Negi Hembrom wife of Late Basta Hembrom 5. Dashmat Murmu son of Late Sangram Murmu 6. Duli Murmu 7. Sonia Murmu 8. Puja Murmu All daughters of Late Sangram Murmu 9. Jugal Sahu 10. Rama Sahu 11. Gobra Sahu 12. Madhu Sahu All sons of Late Suru Sahu 13. Geeta Mahapatra wife of Hara Mahapatra 14.Bablu Mahapatra son of Done Mahapatra 15. Hemanto Sahu son of Late Suru Sahu 16. Vishnu Sahu 17. Barma Sahu Both sons of Late Tilay Chandra Sahu 18. Jagannath Mahapatra 19. Trinath Mahapatra Both sons of Saitaban Mahapatra 20. Sukhlal Sahu, son of Giridhari Sahu 21. Kalia Sahu son of Late Berma Sahu 22.Bishi Bihari wife of Late Santosh Bihari 23. Arjun Pasha 24.Janjari Basha 25.Bahadur Basha 26. Nirmal Basha All sons of Late Donde Basha 27. Alok Basha 28. Dipak Basha 29. Rupak Basha 30. Dilip Basha All sons of Late Joge Basha 2025:JHHC:28239 31. Bengo Bihari son of Late Ram Prasad Bihari 32. Nitish Gope 33. Ashok Gope 34. Sotia Gope All sons of Late Soma Gope 35. Shiva Gope son of Late Radha Gope 36. Ravi Gope son of Late Hari Gope 37. Kishna Hansdah 38. Dhaniram Hansdah 39. Suni Hansdah All sons of Chakun Manjhi All residents of Main Road, Karandih Chow, P.O. Karandih, P.S. Parsudih, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum (Jharkhand) 40. Deputy Commissioner, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum, P.O. and P.S. Bistupur, District East Singhbhum. 41. Majhia Soren son of Late Gopi Nath Manjhi resident of Karandih, Sarjamtola, P.O. Karandih, P.S. Parsudih, Town Jamshedpur, district East Singhbhum. 42. Magda Soren son of Lat Manjhi Ram Soren, resident of CISF Unit, SCCL Singerani (STTP Ojaipur) P.O. and P.S. Jaipur, District Adilabad, State Telegana, PIN 504216 … …. Opposite Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Kundan Kumar Ambastha, Advocate Mr. Md. Abdul Wahab, Advocate For the O.P. Nos. 1 to 3 : Mr. Rohitashya Roy, Advocate Mr. Shivam Kumar, Advocate ------ Order No. 09 / Dated : 15.09.2025. 1. Original petitioner is defendant no. 17 in Original Suit No. 82 of 2016 which has been filed for declaration of right, title and interest and recovery of possession. Original Petitioner has been substituted in the instant petition by his children who have been impleaded as Petitioners 1(a),1(b) and 1(c). 2. Earlier original petitioner was not impleaded in the suit, rather his father Sardar Gurmit Singh was impleaded as defendant no. 17. However, after the death of his father, original petitioner filed a petition under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC for being impleaded in the suit which was allowed vide order dated 18.07.2023. It was noted by the Trial Court that Sardar Gurmit Singh died on 16.08.2014. Since the petitioner was accepted to be a necessary party, therefore, he was permitted to be impleaded in the suit, subject to condition that no separate written statement would be allowed, as the written statement had already been filed by his father, Sardar Gurmit Singh. 2025:JHHC:28239 3. The petitioner later on filed a written statement which was not accepted, consequently, he moved before this Court in C.M.P. No. 704 of 2022 on the ground that his father had never filed the written statement and wrongly it had been stated that his father had filed such a statement. The said civil misc. petition was disposed of by this Court directing the Trial Court to pass order afresh, since Sardar Bhupinder Singh had not signed the said statement. 4. The facts are not in dispute that the grand-father of the present petitioner Sardar Gurmit Singh @ Gurmit Singh was impleaded in the suit as defendant no. 17 but he had not filed the written statement. Thereafter, his son Sardar Bhupinder Singh was impleaded as a party defendant no. 17 and he had filed separate written statement on 09.12.2019. As held by this Court earlier in C.M.P. No. 704 of 2022, the father of Sardar Bhupinder Singh namely, Sardar Gurmit Singh, had not filed the written statement. 5. During pendency of the said civil misc. petition, Sardar Bhupinder Singh died and had been substituted by his sons and daughters, both, in the Trial Court as well as in this Court. 6. The issue revolves on the question whether the written statement filed by original petitioner Sardar Bhupinder Singh, can be accepted. 7. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner’s father had an independent right, title and interest over the property and was impleaded under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC, therefore, original petitioner should be permitted to file a separate written statement. 8. It is contended by learned counsel for the plaintiffs/opposite parties that they are the heirs and descendants of original defendant no. 17-Sardar Gurmit Singh. Even if it is accepted that the written statement of their father- Sardar Bhupinder Singh is accepted on record, further written statement cannot be allowed. 9. Having heard the parties, I find that there is merit in the submission advanced on behalf of the plaintiff/opposite party that the impleadment of Sadar Bhupinder Singh was substitution in place of his father Sardar Gurmeet Singh, irrespective of the provision cited in the order. Order I Rule 10 cannot come into play, when there is a specific provision for substitution under Order 22 Rule 3. There cannot also be two views that substituted parties merely step into the shoes of their predecessor and cannot set up an independent or new case. 2025:JHHC:28239 10. Nevertheless, the fact remains the said written statement purported to be signed by Late Sardar Gurmeet Singh, did not bear his signature. Therefore, it cannot be said that the written statement had been filed by him, so as to preclude the original petitioner from filing written statement. 11. In this view of matter order of rejection of the written statement filed by the original petitioner Sardar Bhupinder Singh before the trial court is not sustainable and is accordingly set aside. Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Pawan/ - 15.09.2025