SMT. INDRANI DEVI Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) Petitioner is defendant no. 1 who has been shown to be wife of Late Bhagirath Mistry @ Bhagirath Sharma. The suit was filed on behalf of Respondent No. 2 as well as Smt. Pinki Sharma, her daughter/plaintiff asking for a relief that they be declared as heirs, successors, representative of late Bhagirath Mistry @ Bhagirath Sharma and are entitled to get all amounts, benefit left by deceased lying in the Lalmatiya Colliery, Eastern Coal Field Limited and for that defendant nos. 2 and 3 be directed to pay the same, further to direct the defendants to pay the amount in case is found the same paid to defendant nos. 1 and 2, for declaration of marriage of defendant no.1 with late Bhagirath Mistry @ Bhagirath Sharma void and not binding upon plaintiff, cost of suit, any relief or relief which the plaintiff is found entitled for before the Sub-Judge-1st, Munger bearing Title Suit No. 57/2002. While the suit was sailing, the Family Court Act, 1984 came into existence where under Family Courts were constituted. Identifying the jurisdiction in terms of Sec. 7 of the Family Court Act, the plaintiff/respondent no. 2 filed a petition before learned District & Sessions Judge, Munger for transfer of Title Suit No. 57/2002 to the Court of Family Court and the same was numbered as Miscellaneous (Transfer) Case No. 07/2009. Without hearing the petitioner (defendant) vide order dated 25.03.2010 the same was allowed against which, the petitioner preferred CWJC No. 20701/2010 where under the order was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the learned District & Sessions Judge, Munger to pass an order, afresh after hearing both the parties whereupon the aforesaid Miscellaneous (Transfer) Case No. 07/2009 revived. After hearing both the parties, vide order dated 22.11.2012, the learned District & Sessions Judge allowed the transfer petition, which happens to be the subject matter of instant petition.

(3.) During midst thereof, as has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Principal Judge, Munger proceeded with Title Suit No. 57/2002 in exceptional manner and in spite of having been acknowledged with regard to pendency of instant petition, which the order dated 05.01.2013 does contain, ignored the same, proceeded with the trial and lastly, vide judgment dated 14.01.2013, disposed of the suit in spite of the fact that vide order dated 11.01.2013, passed in present petition further proceeding before the learned lower court was stayed.