Mahabir Prasad Jain vs Hira Lal Jain & Ors on 12 October, 2009

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
                                L.P.A No. 340     OF 2009
      Mahabir Prasad Jain
                                  Vs.
      1.Hira Lal Jain
      2.Rakesh Jain
      3.Vidya Prakash Jain
      4.Ramesh Sethi
      5.Sampat Lal Jain
      6.Mangi Lal Jain
      7.Dilip Jain
      8.Harak Chand Jain
      9.Nagarm Mal Jain
      10.Bimal Budhiya
                                              -------

      CORAM                               HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                                         HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.K.SINHA

      For the Appellant                                Mr.H.K.Mahto

      For the Respondent                               ------
                                                       ---------

3/12.10.2009

This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order

dated 1.7.2009 passed in W.P (C) No.2275/2006 and W.P (C) No.408/2007, by

which both the writ petitions had been dismissed granting liberty to the

petitioner/appellant herein to approach the competent authority for proper

adjudication of the dispute as to whether the property in question is a trust

property or not.

An Office objection has been raised regarding maintainability of this

appeal, wherein the office has pointed out that the appellant had challenged the

judgment and order passed in Title Suit No.165/06 by filing writ petition before the

learned Single Judge and hence, this appeal should not be held maintainable. In

fact, the Office although has pointed out a relevant aspect of the matter, the fact

remains that the writ petition in the first place ought not to have been registered by

the Office, when the matter was placed before the learned Single Judge. As the

petitioner/appellant had challenged the judgment and order of the Sub-Ordinate

Judge, Hazaribagh, passed in T.S No.165/2006 wherein the dispute was purely in

regard to demolition of a house which is standing on plot nos.445 and 446, the writ

petition obviously could not have been entertained against the judgment and order
2

passed in a civil suit. Hence, the writ petition has rightly been rejected although not

on the ground of its maintainability. In fact, it is more than obvious that the writ

petition bearing W.P (C) No.408/2007 itself was not maintainable as the writ could

not have been entertained against the judgment and order passed by the Sub-

Ordinate Judge in a Title Suit.

Since the writ petition itself was not maintainable, the question of

maintainability of this appeal does not arise. Hence the office objection is perfectly

justified although slightly for different reasons which have been pointed out

hereinabove. The appeal, under the circumstance, is dismissed.

(Gyan Sudha Misra, C.J)

(D.K.Sinha,J)
dey