IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 1357 of 2011
Gaurav Kumar Jhunjhunwala & Ors. ... ... Petitioners
Versus
State of Jharkhand & Ors. ... ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE POONAM SRIVASTAV
For the Petitioners : M/s Indrajit Sinha, Kaushik Sarkhel, Advocates
For the RespondentState : J.C. to A.G.
03/15.03.2011
The instant writ petition has been preferred against the order of eviction
passed by Respondent No. 3 Sub Divisional Officer, Godda from the shops in
occupation of the respective petitioners. The occupation of the petitioners is by virtue
of tenancy created by Respondent No. 4 Santhal Pargana Khadi Gram Udyog Samiti,
Deoghar.
The submission is that the petitioners are in occupation of the shops
constructed by Respondent No. 4 on the land leased out by the State Government
after the expiry of lease. Respondent No. 4, who was permitted to continue in
possession and the shops were constructed and given out on rent. The argument is
that the order of eviction passed by SubDivisional Officer, is without jurisdiction.
The State counsel has prayed for and is allowed four weeks’ time to file
counter affidavit.
Issue notice to Respondent No. 4.
Returnable at an early date.
Steps shall be taken by the learned counsel to serve the contesting respondent
no. 4 by speed post within one week.
The respondent no. 4 shall file counter affidavit within three weeks from the
date of receipt of notice.
List this writ petition after six weeks.
Till the next date of listing, operation of the impugned order dated
09.03.2011 passed by SubDivisional Officer, Godda shall remain stayed.
(Poonam Srivastav, J.)
Manish
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 3967 of 2010
Sajjan Kumar Agarwalla & Anr. … … Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through the
Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad & Ors. … … Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE POONAM SRIVASTAV
For the Petitioners : Mr. J. K. Pasari, Advocate
For the RespondentState : J.C. to G.A.
03/15.03.2011 Heard counsel for the petitioners and also counsel for the State.
The order impugned in the instant writ petition is dated 05.06.2010 passed by
the Additional District and Sessions Judge, F.T.C. V, Dhanbad, confirming the order
in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 62 of 2010 dated 29.03.2010 passed by the Sub Judge
I, Dhanbad in Title Suit No. 48 of 2008.
The petitioners have preferred the Title Suit no. 48 of 2008, which is pending
before the trial court and an application for interim injunction under Order 39 Rule
1 and 2 C.P.C. was moved to restrain the respondent from making any construction
adjacent to the boundary wall of the suit property.
The grievance of the petitioner is that no place is left beyond the boundary
wall of the petitioner and there might be an occasion, the petitioner would want to
open a gate or do anything else adjacent to the suit property and then, it will be
difficult for them to do so. Even if the road is to be constructed, it will cause
difficulty and, therefore, the injunction application. The said application was rejected
by the trial court and it was challenged in the Miscellaneous Appeal, which has also
been rejected.
I have perused the impugned order, it is an admitted case of the petitioner
that the injunction is being sought on the land which is adjacent to the suit property
and not owned by the plaintiff himself. The insistence is that the construction work
carried out by the State Government may at least be shifted 20 feet away of the
boundary wall of the petitioner so that in future, if road etc. is to be constructed,
there will be no difficulty. Thus, the injunction sought is for a possible construction
in near future. The learned District Judge has refused the prayer of the plaintiff on
the ground, if at all, the petitioner has any grievance that the municipal laws are
being violated then, the plaintiff should approach the municipal authority and raise
his grievance under the municipal laws. It goes without saying that the right to raise
his objection before the municipal authority is not hampered by refusal to grant
temporary injunction.
I do not find any error in the impugned judgment. The petitioner has not been
able to make out a case for interim injunction or any right on the property on which
the interim injunction is being claimed. In absence of any right, there is no question
of irreparable loss or any other loss in terms of money which cannot be compensated
in future and regarding balance of convenience as well. In view of the absence of all
these three cardinal requirement for grant of interim injunction, I am of considered
view that the order of the courts below on the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and
2 C.P.C. does not call for any interference. There is no merit in this writ petition, the
same is accordingly dismissed.
(Poonam Srivastav, J.)
Manish
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 5776 of 2010
Parijat Vyapar Private Limited & Anr. … … Petitioners
Versus
J. Khan & Ors. … … Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE POONAM SRIVASTAV
For the Petitioners : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondents :
04/15.03.2011 Pursuant to the office report dated 14.03.2011, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners is directed to take fresh steps to serve notice upon
Respondent No. 2 at his correct and present address. Steps must be taken by
registered post within a week.
(Poonam Srivastav, J.)
Manish
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
First Appeal No. 868 of 2006
Bhairab Chandra Ghose ... ... Appellant
Versus
Sushobhan Ghosh & Ors. ... ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE POONAM SRIVASTAV
For the Appellants : M/s Asit Baran Mahato, R. Gupta, N. Sah, R.K. Gupta
For the Respondents : Mr. Indrajit Sinha
14/15.03.2011 The instant injunction application has been moved for restraining the
respondents from alienating the disputed land mentioned in Schedule B.
Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents filed his reply stating therein
that they are not alienating or creating third party interest.
In view of an unequivocal statement by the counsel appearing for the
respondents, the injunction application is disposed of.
Office is directed to ensure that the order calling for lower court records be
complied with and list this appeal for final hearing on 27.03.2011.
(Poonam Srivastav, J.)
Manish
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S.A. No. 61 of 2006
Chandra Nath Thakur ... ... Appellant
Versus
Govind Lal Ghosh & Ors. ... ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE POONAM SRIVASTAV
For the Appellants : M/s Mahesh Tewari, Ravi Goswami, S.K. Chandra
For the Respondents : Mr. Rajendra Prasad
15/15.03.2011 Counsel for the appellant prays for and is allowed two weeks' time to file
substitution application to substitute the heirs of the deceased respondent no. 2.
Learned counsel has not taken any steps for issuance of notice upon
respondent no. 3 at his present and correct address in the limitation matter.
He is allowed two weeks’ and no more time to take steps.
(Poonam Srivastav, J.)
Manish
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S.A. No. 34 of 2008
Dasrath Mahato & Ors. ... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar, now Jharkhand & Ors.... ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE POONAM SRIVASTAV
For the Appellants : Mr. P.K. Prasad
For the Respondents : Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha
10/15.03.2011 The service report in respect of respondent nos. 9, 11, 32 and 33 is that they
have validly been served. So far respondent no. 10 is concerned, she is in custody.
However, since the residence shown in respect of respondent nos. 9 and 10 is one
and the same, the service is deemed to be sufficient.
I.A. No. 3420 of 2010
I.A. No. 3420 of 2010 has been filed for expunging the name of respondent
no. 17 from the array of parties, since the heirs are already on record.
Prayer is allowed.
Let the name of respondent no. 17 be deleted from the array of the parties.
I.A. No. 3420 of 2010 stands disposed of.
(Poonam Srivastav, J.)
Manish
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S.A. No. 207 of 2008
Ram Lochan Sah & Ors. ... ... Appellants
Versus
Most. Jharia Devi & Ors. ... ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE POONAM SRIVASTAV
For the Appellants : Mr. Arbind Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Shree Prakash Jha, Advocate
07/15.03.2011 Defect no. 2 in the instant appeal is that the appellant no. 3 of the title appeal
was not arrayed as the party as well as respondent nos. 20 to 24 also do not find
place in the decree under appeal.
I.A. No. 416 of 2009
I.A. No. 416 of 2009 has been filed to clarify the said defect.
It is stated that appellant no. 3 of Title Appeal No. 11 of 2003, Ram Bilas Sah
is not traceable since last 1516 years as well as respondent nos. 20 to 24, Mukesh
Kumar and Muni Kumari are also not traceable since last 89 years. In these
circumstances, they have not been arrayed as the party.
In view of the unequivocal statement, the defect no. 2 is liable to be ignored.
I.A. is accordingly disposed of.
(Poonam Srivastav, J.)
Manish
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Transfer Petition (C) No. 28 of 2010
Jaishree Devi ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ... ... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE POONAM SRIVASTAV
For the Petitioner : Ms. Rita Kumari, Advocate
04/15.03.2011 Counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this petition.
Prayer is allowed.
This petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
(Poonam Srivastav, J.)
Manish
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S.A. No. 101 of 2005
Sarfuran Bibi & Ors. ... ... Appellants
Versus
Asin Mian & Ors. ... ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE POONAM SRIVASTAV
For the Appellants : Mr. P.K. Prasad
For the Respondents : Mr. A.K. Choudhary
04/15.03.2011 Counsel for the appellants prays for and is allowed four weeks' time to file
substitution petition in respect of respondent nos. 59 and 66, who are reported to be
dead and the second prayer is for taking fresh steps at the present and correct
address to serve respondent nos. 8, 32, 35, 36, 41, 42, 45, 48, 49 and 55 and also to
take fresh steps to serve respondent nos. 45 and 58 by ordinary process.
(Poonam Srivastav, J.)
Manish