Vinay Kumar Singh v. Jailal Rai And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.1722 of 2017 ====================================================== Vinay Kumar Singh son of Mahadeo Singh resident of Village- Bisunpur Basant Subhai, P.S.- Sadar Hajipur, District- Vaishali. ... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1.

Jailal Rai son of Late Kamal Rai 2.

Harindra Kumar Singh son of Late Kapildeo Narayan Singh. 3.

Smt. Sharaswati Devi wife of Prabhakar Prasad Singh. 4.

Smt. Chandrawati Devi W/o. Diwakar Prasad Singh 5.

Most. Hilsi Devi wife of Late Parichhan Rai 6.

Rajendra Rai 7.

Nathuni Rai Both are son of Bhonu Rai Respondent no. 1 to 7 are resident of Village- Bishunpur Basant Subhal, P.S. Sadar Hospital, District- Vaishali.

8.

Most. Kalawati Kuer wife of Bishwanath Singh resident of Village- Aasoi, P.S. Bhagwanpur District- Vaishali.

9.

Dineshwar Prasad Singh son of Bhikhan Singh

10. Jitendra Prasad Singh

11. Satendra Prasad Singh Both are sons of Late Acchut Singh Respondent no. 9 to 11 are resident of Village- Bishunpur Basant Subhai, P.S. Sadar Hajipur, District- Vaishali.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s :

Mr. Dronacharya Mr. Ranjit Kumar Thakur For the Respondent/s :

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 17-10-2017 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.

This application, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against an order, dated 07.09.2017, passed, by learned Sub Judge VIII, Vaishali, at Hajipur, in Title Suit No. 543 of 2001, in my view, need not be entertained as no case of interference is made out in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty and

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1722 of 2017(2) dt.17-10-2017 2/2 Another v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329, and various other decisions.

By the impugned order, the petitioner's application, dated 07.09.2017, seeking direction to the Court to obtain certain information relevant for due adjudication of the case, has been rejected.

I do not think extra-ordinary power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India needs to be exercised inasmuch as the impugned order cannot be said to be completely meaningless. This application stands accordingly dismissed. (Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) Prabhakar Anand/- U √