Yamuna Mahtao And ORS v. Most. Bimla Devi And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4686 of 2015 ======================================================
1. Yamuna Mahtao
2. Rajendra Mahato @ Rajendra Prasad Both sons of late Mahabir Mahto
3. Binod Kumar
4. Subodh Kumar Both sons of Yamuna Mahto
5. Sunil Kumar
6. Ajit Kumar Both sons of Rajendra Prasad All residents of Mohalla Khandhpar, Sheikhpura, Post Office, Police Station and DistrictSheikhpura. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Most. Bimla Devi wife of Late Surendra Prasad.
2. Sangeeta Devi wife of Sanjay Kumar, daughter of Late Surendra Prasad
3. Sweta Kumari daughter of Late Surendra Prasad
4. Manoj Kumar son of Late Surendra Prasad All resident of village Khandhpar, Post Office and Police Station Khandhpar, District Sheikhpura.
5. Babita Devi
6. Savitri Devi
7. Manti Devi No. 5 to 7 daughters of Late Hira Mahalto.
8. Most. Rambati Devi widow of Late Bhuneshwar Prasad, daughter of Late Mahabir Mahato. All resident of village Khandhpar, Post Office and Police Station Khandhpar, District Sheikhpura. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ambuj Nayan Chaubey For the Respondent/s : Mr.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. NATH ORAL ORDER 27-08-2015 Heard Mr. K.N. Chaubey, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4686 of 2015 (2) dt.27-08-2015 This application has been placed under the heading to be mentioned at the instance of the petitioners. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the matter may be heard and disposed of at this stage.
After considering the submissions on behalf of the petitioners, this Court finds that by the impugned order, the learned appellate court below has accepted some documents by way of additional evidence and has observed that the relevancy of the said document shall be decided at the time of final hearing. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order.
The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. (V. Nath, J) Devendra/- U