Mahendra Lal Alias Mahendra Sao v. Yogendra Kumar Singh And ORS

Patna High Court CWJC No.7088 of 2015 (3) dt.14-07-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7088 of 2015 ====================================================== Mahendra Lal Alias Mahendra Sao .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

Yogendra Kumar Singh & Ors .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Minakshi Kumari For the Respondent/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO ORAL ORDER 14-07-2016 Heard learned counsel, Miss. Minakshi Kumari, appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned counsel, Mr. Shailendra Kr. Sinha, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 2.

Earlier notices were issued to the respondents in admission matter. The respondents have already appeared. 3.

It appears that on the death of Rajpati Devi, who was defendant in the court below, substitution application was filed. The court below has rejected the said substitution application by the impugned order dated 16.03.2015 passed by the A.D.J.-III, Patna.

4.

It is admitted fact that said Rajpati Devi has already been examined as P.W.-6 in the court below and she has admitted to have executed the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs are claiming partition of the property sold by her. The said Rajpati Devi never contested the suit. In this writ application,

Patna High Court CWJC No.7088 of 2015 (3) dt.14-07-2016 Rajpati Devi has been made party as respondent No.3 and thereafter substitution application has been filed. Her legal representative have already appeared through their learned counsel, Mr. Mayank Kumar. He submitted that since the property has already been transferred by Rajpati Devi in favour of the plaintiffs, they have got no interest in the property. 5.

In such view of the matter, when the plaintiffs have acquired title on the basis of the sale deed according to the judgment of the trial court and when Rajpati Devi had not contested the suit, there is no question of substitution of her legal heirs arises. I, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. Thus, this writ application is dismissed.

(Mungeshwar Sahoo, J) brajesh/- U