SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Jamuna Das Sharda vs Smt. Rita Lal & Ors. on 11 August, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

F.A. No. 98 of 2003
Yamuna Das Sarda @ Jamuna Das Sarda … … Appellant
Versus
Smt. Rita Lal Ors. … … Respondents
——–

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH

——–

For the Appellant : Mr. Vikesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Rahul Gupta, Advocate

——–

Order No. 24: Dated 11th August, 2017

I.A. No. 2691 of 2017 has been filed under Order XXII

Rules 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure by Narendra Kumar

Sarda, applicant of this I.A. stating therein that the applicant has

filed the I.A. for substitution of the sole appellant late Yamuna

Prasad Sarda, who died on 18.08.2009, leaving behind following

surviving heirs and legal representatives:

(i) Smt. Suraj Saboo, D/o Late Yamuna
Das Sharda wife of Shri Dhanpat Rai Saboo,
R/o A98 Shiv Marg, Sham Nagar, Jaipur-
302006

(ii) Shri Krishna Kumar Sarda, S/o Late
Yamuna Das Sharda, Sohan Apaprtment, 3rd
Floor, 14 Ran Mohan Dutta Road,
Bhawanipur, Kolkata-700020

(iii) Narendra Kumar Sarda, S/o Late
Jamuna Das Sharda, R/o, Kishan Apartment,
P.P. Compound, Main Road, Ranchi-834001;

(iv) Smt. Jyoti Birla D/o Late Jamuna Das
Sarda, wife of Late Shyam Sunder Birla, 9D
Embassy Building, theater Road, Kolkata;

(v) Smt. Suman Gaattani, D/o Late
Jamuna Das Sharda, w/o Shri Pramod
Gatttani, R/o 5/63, Vishal Khand, Aswarya
Laxmi Niwas, Gomati Nagar, Lucknow (U.P.)-
226010

(vi) Shri Surendra Mohan Sharda, son of
Late Jamuna Das Sharda, Madhu Bazar,
Chaibasa Singhbhum (est), Jharkhand-
833201

(vii) Shri Kamlesh Kumar Sharda, son of
Late Jamuna Das Sharda, Meredian Tower,
Flat No. 501, above Canara Bank, Udit
Nagar, Rourkella-769012.

(viii) Smt. Sushma Mohata, D/o Late
Jamuna Das Sharda, Wife of Shri Vinod
Mohunta, P 20, Civil Township, Rourkella-
769004.

-2-

(ix) Smt. Seema Maheshwari, D/o Late
Jamuna Das Sharda, wife of Shri Gopal
Maheshwari, 12/E, Bandh Road, Allenganj,
Allahabad (U.P.)-211002

It is further submitted that the applicant Narendra

Kumar Sharda is now aged about 72 years and suffering from High

Blood Pressure, Diabetes Mellitus and Chest Pain (Angina). He

remained under treatment of Dr. V.N. Tiwary, a heart-chest

Specialist, Ranchi, since 1991.

An another interlocutory application being I.A. No. 2685

of 2017 has been filed u/s 5 of the Limitation Act on behalf of the

applicant/legal heir of the deceased stating therein that the sole

appellant (Yamuna Prasad Sarda) now deceased, father of the

applicant herein, has filed the present appeal against the judgment

and decree dated 29.07.2003 (decree signed on 12.08.2003) passed

in title (Eviction) Suit No. 5 of 1992/2 of 2002 decreeing the suit on

the ground of alleged default. Para 6 19 are showing the grounds

of delay in filing the instant I.A. for substitution with a prayer for

setting aside the abatement.

Further counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the

respondents stating therein that both the interlocutory applications

being I.A. Nos. 2691 of 2017 and 2685 of 2017 filed by the legal

heir of the appellant, for substitution is not maintainable in the eye

of law and fact and the first appeal filed by the tenant late Yamuna –

Das Sharda got abetted in view of his death during the pendency of

the appeal.

It is also stated in the counter-affidavit that entire suit

was tried under the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction)

Control Act, 1982.

-3-

It was further submitted by referring to the definition of

clause 2(h) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction)

Control Act, 1982 :

clause   2(h)  :   “tenant”   means   any   person   by   whom,   or   on  
whose account rent is payable for a building and includes­

(i)   a   person   continuing   in   possession   after   the  
termination of the tenancy in his favour; and

(ii) a person who occupies a building as an employee of  
the landlord of such building either on payment of rent  
or otherwise;

(iii) in the event of the death of the person continuing in  
possession after the termination of his tenancy, subject  
to   the   order   of   succession   and   conditions   specified,  
respectively,   in   Explanations   I   and   II   of   this   clause,  
such of the aforesaid person’s­

(a) spouse

(b) son or unmarried daughter, or where there are both,  
both of them;

(c) parents;

(d) daughter­in­law, being the widow of a predeceased  
son,   as   had   been   ordinarily   residing   in   the   premises  
with such person as a member or members of his family  
up to the date of his death, but, does not include any  
person   against   whom   an   order   or   decree   for   eviction  
has been made.

  Explanation   I.   The   order   of   succession   in   the   event   of   the  
death of the person continuing in possession after the termination of his  
tenancy shall be as follows:­

 (a) firstly, by his surviving spouse;

(b) secondly, his son or unmarried daughter, or both if  
there is no surviving spouse, or if the surviving spouse  
did not ordinarily reside with the deceased person as a  
member of his family up to the date of his death;

(c) thirdly, his parents, if there is no surviving spouse,  
so9n or unmarried daughter of the deceased person, or  
if such surviving spouse, son or unmarried daughter or  
any of them, did not ordinarily reside int eh premises  
as a member of the family of deceased up to the date of  
his death; and

(d) fourthly, his daughter­in­law, being the widow of  
his   predeceased   son,   if   there   is   no   surviving   spouse,  
son,   unmarried   daughter   or   parents   of   the   deceased  
person or any of them or it such surviving spouse, son,  
unmarried   daughter   or   parents   did   not   ordinarily  
reside in the premises as a member of the family of the  
deceased person up to the date of his death.

­4­

  Explanation II  – If the person, who acquired by succession,  
the right to continue in possession after the termination of the tenancy, was  
not financially dependent on the deceased person on the date of his death,  
such successor whall acquire such right for a limited period of one year,  
and on the expiry of the period or on his death, whichever is earlier, the  
right of such successor to continue in possession after the termination of the  
tenancy shall become extinguished.
  Explanation III­ for the removal of the doubts, it is hereby  
declared that­

(a)   where   due   to   Explanation   III   the   right   of   any  
successor   to   continue   in   possession   after   the  
termination   of   the   tenancy   is   extinguished,   such  
extinguishment   shall   not   affect   right   to   continue   in  
possession   after   the   termination   of   the   tenancy   shall  
not,   on   such   Extinguishment,   pass   on   to   any   other  
successor specified in any lower category or categorizes  
as the case may be;

(b)   the   right   of   every   successor,   referred   to   in  
Explanation   I   to   continue   in   possession   after   the  
termination   of   the   tenancy,   shall   be   personal   to  
him/her and shall not , on the death of such successor  
devolve on any of his heirs.

That period for substitution of the legal heir in terms of

the aforesaid provisions after termination of the tenancy has

expired.

It was further submitted that in view of the

Explanation II (Supra), the legal heirs who have acquired by

succession, the right to continue in possession after termination of

tenancy, such successor while acquires such right for a limited

period of one year and on expiry of the period or his death

whichever is earlier, the right of such successor to continue in

possession after termination of the tenancy shall be extinguished.

It was submitted that before passing any order on the

substitution petition filed under Order XXII rules 3 9 of Code of

Civil Procedure, this Court has to adjudicate the issue as to

whether the right to sue exists for legal heirs or survivor of the

deceased or not.

-5-

List this Case on 01.09.2017.

(Anant Bijay Singh, J.)
MM
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

A.B.A. No. 4740 of 2016
Imteyaz Khan Anr. … … Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand Anr. … … Opp. Parties

——–

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH

——–

For the Petitioners : J.C. to Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State : APP
——–

Order No. 09: Dated 11th August, 2017

On 18.07.2017 learned counsel for the petitioner had

prayed for time for filing the supplementary affidavit.

When the case is called out, learned counsel for the

petitioner file the supplementary-affidavit and prays for some time

that the arguing counsel is in personal difficulty.

Office is directed to make diary entry and tag the

supplementary-affidavit filed by the petitioner with record.

List this case on 29.08.2017.

Till then interim relief granted earlier shall continue.

(Anant Bijay Singh, J.)
MM
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

A.B.A. No. 4340 of 2016
Rinki Devi @ Rinku Devi … … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party
with

A.B.A. No. 4088 of 2016
Smt. Malti Devi Ors. … … Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party
with

A.B.A. No. 4396 of 2016
Sital Oraon Ors. … … Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party
with

A.B.A. No. 4417 of 2016
Hira Ram … … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party
with

A.B.A. No. 4453 of 2016
Ashish Kumar … … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party
with

A.B.A. No. 4474 of 2016
Jageshwar Oraon @ Jageshwar Oranw
@ Jageshwar Oraon Anr. … … Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party
with

A.B.A. No. 4477 of 2016
Krishnakant Srivastava … … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party
with

A.B.A. No. 4506 of 2016
Arun Kumar … … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party

——–

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH

——–

For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Chaturvedi, Advocate
Mr. P.K. Rahul, Advocate
Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate
Mr. J.S. Tripathy, Advocate
For the State : APPs

——–

Order No. 10: Dated 11th August, 2017

On 13.07.2017, the I.O. of the case were directed to

remain physically present before this Court along with up-to-date

case-diary.

I.O. is present and also produce the up-to-date case-diary.

Office is directed to make diary entry of the case-diary

and tag with the record.

Para 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 of the case-diary are

relevant.

The I.O. Is directed to :

 file tabular chart of total amount of Rs.

43,66,110/- misappropriated by the petitioners.

 file a Tabular Chart about the total amount

withdrawn by each of the petitioner on the first and the

last date of the year.

 show that when these amount was withdrawn by

these petitioners. Pursuant to the election of Gram

Panchayat held in the month of December, 2015 they

were elected as Mukhiya in the first April, 2016 they

were vested with the financial power. But the

withdrawal of the amount is prior to that period from

which the financial power vested in the Mukhiya and

they were officially not authorized to withdraw the

amount.

The I.O. Is directed to file the same by way of

affidavit. List this case on 06.09.2017. On that date the I.O. is

directed to produce the aforesaid required documents.
-3-

Till then, interim relief granted earlier shall continue.

Let a copy of the order be handed over to the learned

APP for transmitting the same to the I.O. And Nodal Officer.

(Anant Bijay Singh, J.)
MM
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

A.B.A. No. 3968 of 2016
Pradip Kumar Pandit @ Pradip Kumar Bidyarthi
… … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand Anr. … … Opp. Parties

——–

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH

——–

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranji Kumar, Advocate
For the State : APP
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. M.K. Sah, Advocate
——–

Order No. 09: Dated 11th August, 2017

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection

with Godda (Mahila) P.S. Case No. 11 of 2016 corresponding to G.R.

No. 472 of 2016, in the case registered under Sections 498

(A)/341/323/504/506 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3/4 of

the Dowry Prohibition Act.

On 19.06.2017 both the parties were directed to remain

physically present before the Court. But O.P. No.2 was not present

counsel for O.P. No. 2 was present.

It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner

that the petitioner had filed a divorce petition u/s 13 (B) of Hindu

Marriage Act, which was allowed by the Family Court, Godda.

Learned APP opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

In the facts and circumstances, the above named

petitioner is directed to surrender in the Court below within four

weeks from the date of this order and in the event of his arrest or

surrender the Court below shall enlarge the above named

petitioner on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.

10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like

amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Gooda in connection with Godda (Mahila) P.S. Case No.

11 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. No. 472 of 2016, subject to the
-2-

conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P. C.

Let a copy of the order be sent to the court below.

(Anant Bijay Singh, J.)
MM
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. M.P. No. 51 of 2010
Shatrughan Prasad Anr. … … Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand Anr. … … Opp. Parties

——–

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH

——–

For the Petitioners : Mr. P.K. Choudhary, Advocate
For the State : APP
——–

Order No. 07: Dated 11th August, 2017

It appears from the office report dated 26.10.2016 that

pursuant to order dated 15.06.2016, status report of C/1 Case no.

1570 of 2007 has been received.

This case was assigned to Mr. Rongon Mukhopadhyay, the

then APP, now Hon’ble Judge of this High Court on behalf of the

State. On 27.10.2016, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay

ordered to list this case before appropriate Bench with the

permission of Hon’ble the Chief Justice. Thereafter, this case has

been listed today.

Learned A.G. is directed to nominate a counsel for the

State who shall appear on behalf of the State in this case.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that this

Cr.M.P. has been filed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding in

C/1 Case No. 1570 of 2007 as well as order of taking cognizance

dated 26.06.2008 passed by J.M., 1st Class, Jamshedpur u/s 341,

323, 427, 420, 506, 419, 468,34 of the IPC.

It appears from the office order dated 10.03.2017 that

notice upon O.P. No. 2 has been validly served and service report

from the Judge Incharge has also been received.

Nobody appeared on behalf of the O.P. No. 2.

List this case after six weeks.

-2-

Copy of the order be sent to the court below and also

handed over to learned APP.

(Anant Bijay Singh, J.)
MM
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. M.P. No. 807 of 2017
Sumitra Kumari … … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand Anr. … … Opp. Parties

——–

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH

——–

For the Petitioner     :     Md. Kaisar Alam, Advocate
For the State : APP
--------

Order No. 04: Dated 11th August, 2017

Perused the office report dated 09.08.2017. It appears

from the office note that defects no. 5(a) strand still as C.C. of

orders dated 13.07.2016 and 26.05.2016 with A. fee has not been

filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the High

Court file of A.B.A. No. 4462 is tagged with this Cr.M.P. So, he could

not obtain the certified copy of Hon'ble Court's order dated

13.07.2016 26.05.2016.

Office is directed to release the A.B.A. No. 4462 of 2016 to

be restored in original file latest by 18.08.2017.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to cure the

defects and file the certified copy of the aforesaid documents latest

by 31.08.2017.

List this case thereafter.

(Anant Bijay Singh, J.)
MM
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. M.P. No. 1959 of 2017
Md. Yunus Khan @ Ainu Ali Khan Ors.

                                        ...    ...   Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand Anr. ... ... Opp. Parties
--------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH

--------

For the Petitioners    :     Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, Advocate
For the State : APP
--------

Order No. 03: Dated 11th August, 2017

It appears from the office report dated 10.08.2017 that

defects, as pointed pointed out by the office, have not been

removed.

Learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to remove

the defects on or before 17.08.2017, failing which this Cr.M.P. shall

stand rejected without further reference to a Bench.

(Anant Bijay Singh, J.)
MM
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

A.B.A. No. 2308 of 2017
Rahul Kumar Mandal ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand Anr. ... ... Opp. Parties

--------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH

--------

For the Petitioners    :     Mr. V.K. Roy, Advocate
For the State : APP
--------

Order No. 11: Dated 11th August, 2017

Learned counsel appearing for O.P. No. 2 is directed to

ascertain the fact that whether any maintenance order passed by

the competent authority in favour of the O.P. No. 2, so that

appropriate order will be passed.

List this case on 06.09.2017.

Till then, interim relief granted earlier shall continue.

(Anant Bijay Singh, J.)
MM
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

A.B.A. No. 1510 of 2017
Lokkeshwar Singh Ors. ... ... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand Anr. ... ... Opp. Parties

--------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH

--------

For the Petitioners    :     Mr. Gaurav, Advocate
For the State : APP
--------

Order No. 05: Dated 11th August, 2017

On 23.03.2017 learned counsel for the petitioner was

directed to take steps for issuance of notice upon O.P. No. 2 by both

the process. The matter was directed to be listed on 08.08.2017.

It appears from the office note dated 04.08.2017 that

notices were issued to the O.P. No. 2 by both the process. A/D has

been received with endorsement that signed by mother-in-law

(Somari Devi) and service report has also been received.

It appears from the service report dated 09.07.2017 of

the Judge Incharge that the door of the house of O.P. No. 2 was

found closed.

Under the facts and circumstances, the fourth paragraph

of the order dated 08.08.2017 is modified to the extent that Judge-

in-Charge, Civil Court, Khunti is hereby directed that there is no

requirement to obtain affidavit from the process server with regard

to service of notice.

It appears that notice has been validly served upon O.P.

No. 2 as the mother-in-law has received the notice.

List this case on the date fixed on 20.09.2017. On that

date both the parties are directed to remain physically present

before this Court. If the O.P. No. 2 fails to appear on the next date,

appropriate order will be passed.

Till then, interim relief granted earlier shall continue.
-2-

Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Judge-In-

Charge, Civil Court, Khunti.

(Anant Bijay Singh, J.)
MM
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. M.P. No. 1014 of 2017
Jaydev Mandal ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party

--------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH

--------

For the Petitioner     :     None
For the State : APP
--------

Order No. 05: Dated 11th August, 2017

Nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner.

It appears from the office report dated 24.07.2017 that

defects as pointed pointed out by the office have not been removed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove

the defects within ten days' from the date of the order, failing which

this Cr.M.P. shall stand rejected without further reference to a

Bench.

(Anant Bijay Singh, J.)
MM

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2018 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please to read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registrationJOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307,312, 313,323 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509; and also TEP, RTI etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh