Shakuntala Devi and ors Vs. Jainul Ansari and ors

Shakuntala Devi and ors vs Jainul Ansari and ors

Type Court Judgment Court Jharkhand Decided Mar 06, 2013

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/971773

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/971773
Court: Jharkhand High Court
Decided On: Mar 06, 2013
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Shakuntala Devi and ors

Respondent

Jainul Ansari and ors

Excerpt

.....justice p.p. bhatt. for the petitioners : - mr. ajay kr. singh and b.k. thakur, advocate. 06/06.03.2013 the petitioners by way of the present petition under article 227 of the constitution of india have prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction for quashing and setting aside the order dated 19.11.2011, passed by the learned sub-judge, viii, ranchi in title suit no. 120 of 2004, whereby the petitioner's application dated 16.11.2011, for adducing evidence, has been rejected.2. heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.3. perused the impugned order as well as other materials placed on record.4. it appears that the court below passed an order regarding substitution of the legal heirs of the defendant no. 24 on 08.03.2011 and thereafter, an opportunity was also given to him to file his written statement and the said written statement is also accepted on record. but subsequently, thereto, without giving reasonable opportunity to adduce evidence of these witnesses, the stage of oral evidence has been ordered to be closed by the court below. it appears that request was made by the petitioners by filing an application dated 16.11.2011 (annexure-5). however, without proper consideration of the said application, the court below by order dated 19.11.2011 kept the matter for argument.5. under the circumstances, the substituted legal heirs of the defendant no. 24 i.e. 24 (a) and 24 (b) are required to be given an opportunity to adduce their evidence in the matter. the impugned order dated 19.11.2011 is required to be set aside and the matter is required to be remitted to the court below with a direction to permit the defendant nos. 24 (a) and 24 (b) to adduce their evidence in the matter. therefore, the impugned order dated 19.11.2011, passed by the learned sub-judge, viii, ranchi in title suit no.120 of 2004 is ordered to be quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted to the court below with a direction to permit the defendant nos. 24 (a) and 24.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI. W.P. (C) No. 7607 of 2011 Shakuntala Devi @ Kaushalya Devi & Others Petitioners -V e r s u s- Jainul Ansari & Others Respondents. CORAM: - HONBLE MR. JUSTICE P.P. BHATT. For the Petitioners : - Mr. Ajay Kr. Singh and B.K. Thakur, Advocate. 06/06.03.2013 The petitioners by way of the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India have prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction for quashing and setting aside the order dated 19.11.2011, passed by the learned Sub-Judge, VIII, Ranchi in Title Suit No. 120 of 2004, whereby the petitioner's application dated 16.11.2011, for adducing evidence, has been rejected.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

3. Perused the impugned order as well as other materials placed on record.

4. It appears that the court below passed an order regarding substitution of the legal heirs of the defendant no. 24 on 08.03.2011 and thereafter, an opportunity was also given to him to file his written statement and the said written statement is also accepted on record. But subsequently, thereto, without giving reasonable opportunity to adduce evidence of these witnesses, the stage of oral evidence has been ordered to be closed by the court below. It appears that request was made by the petitioners by filing an application dated 16.11.2011 (Annexure-5). However, without proper consideration of the said application, the court below by order dated 19.11.2011 kept the matter for argument.

5. Under the circumstances, the substituted legal heirs of the defendant No. 24 i.e. 24 (a) and 24 (b) are required to be given an opportunity to adduce their evidence in the matter. The impugned order dated 19.11.2011 is required to be set aside and the matter is required to be remitted to the court below with a direction to permit the defendant nos. 24 (a) and 24 (b) to adduce their evidence in the matter. Therefore, the impugned order dated 19.11.2011, passed by the learned Sub-Judge, VIII, Ranchi in Title Suit No.120 of 2004 is ordered to be quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted to the court below with a direction to permit the defendant nos. 24 (a) and 24 (b) to adduce their evidence in the matter.

6. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed without issuance of notice to the other side, so that Title Suit No 120 of 2004 being an old suit may proceed further. (P.P. Bhatt, J.) APK

Same Court & Year Jharkhand · 2013 Same Parties Shakuntala Devi and ors vs Jainul Ansari and ors Same Subject Education