Patna High Court
JAMADAR MAHTO and ORSversusRAM AYODHYA MAHTO and ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- ABATED
- Bench
- KHATIM REZA
Holding
The appeal is incompetent and is therefore dismissed.
Summary
The case is a second appeal filed by Jamadar Mahto and others against a decree of partition. The appeal was challenged on the ground that a substitution petition had not been filed for respondents numbered 2(iii) and 2(iv). The High Court examined whether the lack of such a petition rendered the appeal incompetent. It held that because the substitution petition was not filed, the appeal could not proceed and was therefore abated. Consequently, the entire appeal was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the appeal is competent in the absence of a substitution petition for certain respondents
- Whether the appeal should be abated and dismissed on that ground
Subjects
- partition suit
- appeal
- abated appeal
- substitution petition
- competence of appeal
- civil procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SECOND APPEAL No.179 of 1994
======================================================
Jamadar Mahto and Ors
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Ram Ayodhya Mahto and Ors
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Satya Nand Shukla, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Mithlesh Kumar Khare, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KHATIM REZA
ORAL ORDER
23 16-02-2026 Since the suit is for partition and the appeal has
already been abated for non-filing of substitution petition with
regard to respondent nos. 2(iii) and 2(iv), the appeal is
incompetent.
2. Consequently, the whole appeal is abated.
3. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
(Khatim Reza, J)
prabhat/-
U
Checking your session…