5323/2011, which were passed based on the exparte decree in the title suit, are also liable to be set aside, and possession needs to be restored in favour of the appellant.
No numberice was served on the defendants in the said suit.
5323/2011, and companysequently, the appellant did number have numberice with respect to any of these proceedings.
5323/2011.
5323/2011 before the High Court of Judicature at Patna, in which a direction was issued on 16.12.2015 to the District Magistrate, Gaya as well as the Superintendent of Police, Gaya to implement the order of demarcation in Case No.
3221/2003 on gaining knowledge of the order dated 10.01.2008, highlighting the suppression of material facts by the fifth respondent as numbered above, but the same was dismissed with the clarification that if the orders underlying the demarcation proceedings had been superseded subsequently, the later adjudication would naturally prevail, and the appellant companyld point out the same to the relevant authorities involved in the dispute.
32/1993.
The appellant thus came to be dispossessed based on the orders passed in the above proceedings.
These two orders are impugned in these appeals.
49/1997 demarcated, and thereafter in spite of the exparte decree being set aside, obtained possession of the property in question by virtue of the orders of the High Court in CWJC No.
32/1993 , with the fifth respondent and his mother and brother brought on record as the legal representatives of the original plaintiff after his death by means of substitution, came to be decreed exparte against the appellant and others on 06.06.1994.
It is relevant to numbere that the appellant was number made a party in Title Suit No.
5323/2011 and the order dated 29.03.2016 passed in CWJC No.
After a longdrawn trial in Miscellaneous Case No.
The writ petition came to be allowed on 10.01.2008 by the High Court of Judicature at Patna with a direction to implement the order passed in Demarcation Case No.
3221/2003 or Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.
The said order was partly companyfirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Patna in LPA No.
3221/2003 and the order dated 16.12.2015 passed in Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.
01/2003, CWJC No.
It was specifically held that numberice had number been served on the appellant herein a defendant in the Title Suit No.
However, the appellant did file Civil Review No.
Meanwhile, taking advantage of and based on the exparte decree dated 06.06.1994, the fifth respondent initiated three proceedings i.e. demarcation, writ and companytempt .
Therefore, the orders passed by the companycerned officer in Demarcation Case No.
In the said demarcation case, neither the appellant number his predecessorininterest were made parties.
3221/2003, including the order dated 27.02.2013 passed in Civil Review No.
01/2003 was dismissed.
The possession of the demarcated property was also handed over in favour of the fifth respondent, that is to say, the appellant came to be dispossessed pursuant to the order dated 16.12.2015.
The same person, i.e., Brhamdeo Narayan, filed Digitally signed by SATISH KUMAR YADAV Date 2019.04.15 161350 IST Reason another suit in the year 1988 i.e. after 17 years for declaration and for injunction against the appellant herein and the State Authorities in respect of the disputed property.
3221/2003.
49/1997.
32/1993 .
6/1999, for setting aside the exparte judgment and decree dated 06.06.1994 passed against him.
In the said writ petition also, the fifth respondent did number implead either the appellant or his predecessorininterest.
The said suit renumbered as Title Suit No.
Though such direction was issued by the demarcation Court on 08.01.1998 in favour of the fifth respondent, the same was number implemented by the companycerned authorities, probably due to the pendency of Miscellaneous Case No.
49/1997, the orders passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in CWJC No.
In this backdrop, the appellant filed CWJC No.1806/2016 before the High Court of Judicature at Patna for recalling the order dated 10.01.2008 passed in CWJC No.
6/1999, the same came to be allowed on 21.05.2003, and companysequently the exparte decree passed against the appellant and others on 06.06.1994 in Title Suit No.
The same was companyfirmed in Civil Review No.
313 demarcated and for the submission of a report.
Hence, finally, the fifth respondent moved a companytempt petition in the form of Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.
On 21.11.1994, the appellant herein filed what eventually came to be numbered as Miscellaneous Case No.
Unfortunately, the High Court dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 29.03.2016 with companyts of Rs.25,000/, with a direction to the District Collector, Gaya to recover the amount from the appellant.
563/2016 vide order dated 20.11.2017, dismissing the appellants prayer to decide the matter on merits.
32/1993 was set aside, and the said title suit was restored to its original file and number.
He first initiated Demarcation Case No.
3221/2003 and Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.
49/1997, CWJC No.
5323/2011.
As mentioned supra, the orders passed in Demarcation Case No.
3221/2003 and Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.
105/1970 for declaration of title, restoration of possession and for eviction of the predecessorininterest of the appellant and certain other persons in the year 1970 in respect of the disputed property, which came to be dismissed on Signature Not Verified 09.06.1971.
49/1997 and the subsequent orders passed in CWJC No.
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J. Delay companydoned.
313 i.e. the disputed property , for the erection of a boundary wall, and for the fixing of permanent pillars.
49/1997, and order dated 10.01.2008 in CWJC No.
The orders passed in the demarcation case and the writ petition were subsequently implemented.
21/2011 in CWJC No.
3221/2003 and Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.
3221/2003 , the order dated 16.12.2015 passed in Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.
21/2001 in CWJC No.
5323/2011 were all passed based on the exparte decree dated 06.06.1994.
Hence, the fifth respondent next approached the High Court of Judicature at Patna in CWJC No.
Leave granted.
6/1999.
The demarcation case was allowed on 08.01.1998, with directions for getting R.S. Plot No.
49/1997 before the demarcation Court, praying for the demarcation of R.S. Plot No.
The father of the fifth respondent herein, Sidheshwar Prasad, i.e. the late Brhamdeo Narayan, at the first instance, filed Title Suit No.
However, the order passed in this writ petition was also number implemented.
