Aatish Kumar v. Nawal Kishore Prasad

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CIVIL REVISION No.82 of 2023 ====================================================== 1.

Aatish Kumar Son of Late Ganga Prasad, resident of Gulab Bag, Ward No. 33, P.O. and P.S. - Bettiah, District - West Champaran. 2.

Ashish Kumar, Son of Late Ganga Prasad, resident of Gulab Bag, Ward No. 33, P.O. and P.S. - Bettiah, District - West Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

Nawal Kishore Prasad Son of Late Murali Manohar Prasad, Resident of Gulab Bag, P.O. and P.S. - Bettiah, District West Champaran. 2.

Smt. Nilam Verma, Wife of Late Ganga Prasad, resident of Gulab Bag, Ward No. 33, P.O. and P.S. - Bettiah, District - West Champaran. 3.

Meena Kumar, D/o Late Ganga Prasad, resident of Gulab Bag, Ward No. 33, P.O. and P.S. - Bettiah, District - West Champaran. 4.

Priti Kumari, D/o Late Ganga Prasad, resident of Gulab Bag, Ward No. 33, P.O. and P.S. - Bettiah, District - West Champaran. 5.

Raju Prasad, Son of Urmila Devi, Wife of Late Shankar Prasad Sinha, resident of Dakbanglo Road, Bettiah, P.O. and P.S. - Bettiah, District - West Champaran.

6.

Babloo Kumar, son of Urmila Devi, Wife of Late Shankar Prasad Sinha, resident of Dakbanglo Road, Bettiah, P.O. and P.S. - Bettiah, District - West Champaran.

7.

Sachin Kumar, Son of Late Asha Devi Wife of Sashi Bhushan Prasad Verms, Resident of Village - Bagahi, P.O. and P.S. - Jogapatti, District - West Champaran.

8.

Nitin Kumar, Son of Late Asha Devi Wife of Sashi Bhushan Prasad Verms, Resident of Village - Bagahi, P.O. and P.S. - Jogapatti, District - West Champaran.

9.

Pummay Kumari, D/o Late Asha Devi Wife of Sashi Bhushan Prasad, Verma, Resident of Village - Bagahi, P.O. and P.S. - Jogapatti, District - West Champaran.

10.

Madhu Devi, Wife of Suresh Prasad, Resident of Bagaha - 1, P.O. and P.S. - Bagaha, District - West Champaran.

11.

Gudiya Devi, wife of Open Kumar, Resident of Village/Mohalla - Christan Quarter, P.O. and P.S. - Bettiah, District - West Champaran. 12.

Muni Devi, Wife of Laloo Prasad, Resident of Village and P.O.- Dhankutwa, P.S. - Balthar, District- West Champaran.

13.

Nirmala Devi, wife of Sri Raghunandan Prasad Verms, Resident of Mishir Tola, Darbhanga, P.O. and P.S. - Darbhanga, District- Darbhanga. 14.

Bimala Devi, wife of Late Sharda Kumar Srivastava, Resident of Village - Nawalpur, P.O. and P.S. - Nawalpur, District - West Champaran. 15.

Kamala Devi, Wife of Anand Bihari Srivastava, Resident of Village and P.O - Amarpura, P.S. - Barhima, District - Gopalganj.

Patna High Court C.R. No.82 of 2023(5) dt.19-12-2023 2/3 ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Bishwa Nath Chaudhary For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Shiv Kumar Dwivedy ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 19-12-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as opposite parties.

2. A petition under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the C.P.C. was filed by the petitioners in Revocation Case No. 01 of 2011 in which he was opposite party, on the ground that the opposite party no. 1 appeared in the probate case and he filed his no objection petition with vakalatnma and on the basis of his no objection, the probate was granted to the father of the petitioners. As such, the Revocation Case (plaint) does not disclose the cause of action and it should be rejected at its threshold under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the C.P.C.

3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that he never filed no objection in probate case nor he appeared nor filed any vakalatnama and the probate was granted behind his back and it was the reason, he filed revocation Case No. 01 of 2011.

4. In my view, without taking the evidence of the parties, this matter cannot be decided. It cannot be thrown at its

Patna High Court C.R. No.82 of 2023(5) dt.19-12-2023 3/3 threshold. The Revocation Case No. 01 of 2011 cannot be rejected under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11(d) of the C.P.C.

5. The learned court below is directed to decide this case after giving proper opportunities to the parties of being heard.

6. With these observations, this Civil Revision is dismissed, and the impugned order is upheld.

7. The learned court below shall take every endeavor to dispose of the revocation case within one year, except the circumstances beyond the control of the court or created by the petitioners or opposite parties. He shall not fix a date for more than seven days.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) Nirmal/AKV U