Patna High CourtCWJC/15670/2014dismissed

Lal Babu Yadav v. Leela Devi And ORS

2016-10-27Mr. Justice V. Nath2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15670 of 2014 =========================================================== Lal Babu Yadav S/o Late Sita Ram Yadav resident of Mohalla Hans Raj Kee Deorhi, Sadargali (Banwari Tola), P.S. Khajekalan, Dist - Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. Leela Devi W/o Late Dwarka Pd. resident of Mohalla - Hans Raj Dee Deorhi, P.S. Khajekallan, Dist - Patna.

2. Amar Nath Yadav S/o Sita Ram Yadav resident of Mohalla Hans Raj Kee Deorhi, Sadargali (Banwari Tola), P.S. Khajekalan, Dist - Patna.

3. Rahul minor son of Amarnath Yadav

4. Rohit minor son of Amar Nath Yadav

5. Rani minor daughter of Amar Nath Yadav, 3,4,5 are living under the guardianship of natural father Amar Nath Yadav as Well wisher and next friend all are resident of Mohalla Hans Raj Kee Deorhi, Sadar Gali (Banwari Tola) P.S. Khajekallan, Dist - Patna.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Tilak Sao For the Respondent/s : Mr.

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. NATH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 27-10-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

By the impugned order, the learned court below has rejected the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner under Order 21 Rule 99 and Section 144 C.P.C. praying for restoration/recovery of possession.

From the perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the petitioner has not impleaded the necessary parties to the

Patna High Court CWJC No.15670 of 2014 dt.27-10-2016 miscellaneous case in the learned court below. In the present application also the petitioner has not impleaded the necessary parties. The learned court below has rightly considered the facts and circumstances of the case and thereafter has rejected the petitioner filed by the petitioner. On behalf of the petitioner, it could not be shown or established that any illegality has been committed by the learned court below in passing the impugned order. This Court, therefore, is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The application is accordingly dismissed.

(V. Nath, J) Devendra/- U