Patna High CourtCWJC/9948/2014dismissed

Sunil Kumar Thakur v. Satyendra Choudhary @ Narendra Chaudhary And ORS

2016-05-19Mr. Justice V. Nath2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9948 of 2014 ===========================================================

1. Sunil Kumar Thakur S/o Late Ramadhar Thakur resident of village - Hasopur, P.S. Khanpur, District - Samastipur.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. Satyendra Choudhary @ Narendra Chaudhary Son of Late Mahendar Chaudhary of village - Hasopur, P.S. - Khanpur, District - Samastipur.

2. Bhushan Paswan S/o Jhari Lal Paswan.

3. Vimal Paswan S/o Palakdhari Paswan both of village Hasopur, P.S. - Khanpur, District - Samastipur.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shambhu Sharan Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr.

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. NATH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 19-05-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

The challenge in the present application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order by which the learned Court below has directed the defendant to lead evidence. The fact is not in dispute that the suit was filed by the plaintiff pertaining to his right, title and interest over the suit land, however, the defendant filed his written statement as also the counter claim on the basis of a registered document. In that backdrop, the learned court below by order dated

Patna High Court CWJC No.9948 of 2014 dt.19-05-2016 12.12.2012 directed the defendant to adduce evidence first. It has been the submission on behalf of the petitioner that a petition for recall of the said order was filed on 26.11.2013. The learned counsel for the petitioner has accepted that the defendant-petitioner has filed a counter claim in the suit praying for declaration of his own title over the suit premises on the basis of purchase through registered document.

In view of this fact, this Court does not find that any miscarriage of justice has been done by the learned court below directing the defendant to lead evidence which requires any interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by this Court.

This application is, accordingly, dismissed.

(V. Nath, J) Ranjan/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N.A Uploading Date 01.07.16 Transmission Date N.A