Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 4236 (JHR)

SURENDRA PRASAD SRIVASTAVA v. RAMA KANT YADAV

C.R./3/2024 · 2025-02-04

Rajesh Kumar

Original Suitbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Civil Revision No.3 of 2024 ---- 1. Surendra Prasad Srivastava, aged about 75, son of Late Gudar Lal Srivastava, resident of War No.1, Meri Tola, P.O. Chaibasa, P.S. Sadar, District West Singhbhum (Jharkhand) 2. Abhishek Srivastava, aged about 42, Son of Sri Surendra Prasad Srivastav, resident of Ward No.1, Meri Tola, P.O. Chaibasa, P.S. Sadar, District West Singhbhum (Jharkhand) …. …. Petitioners -Versus- Rama Kant Yadav, Son of Late Laxman Ram, Permanent residents of Village Dongaposhi, P.O. Dongaposhi, P.S. Noamudin, District West Singhbhum (Jharkhand) and presently residing at Village-Mahulsai, P.O. Chaibasa, P.S. Muffasil, District West Singhbhum (Jharkhand) …. …. Opposite Party ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ---- For the Petitioners : Mr. Krishanu Ray, Advocate For the Opp. Party : ---- 07/Dated: 04th February, 2025 1. The present civil revision petition has been filed against the order dated 20.10.2023 passed in Original Suit No.14 of 2015 by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division), West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, whereby the petition dated 21.07.2023 filed by the defendant (herein petitioners) has been dismissed. 2. A ground has been taken that the property in question is “Khas Mahal” and as such the suit is not maintainable on the ground of non-joinder of the necessary party i.e., the State. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and from perusal of the record, it appears that written statement has already been filed by the present revisionists. The nature of property has to be decided by the learned Court below after framing of the issue. This cannot be a ground for rejection of the plaint. 4. In that view of the matter, I do not find any reason to entertain the present civil revision petitioner. Accordingly, the same is hereby, dismissed. 5. However, petitioners are at liberty to work out their remedy in accordance with law in the pending trial. 6. This order will not be prejudiced either of the parties. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Raja/-Uploaded