KRISHNA KUMAR AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has pointed out that Respondent No. 1 is not a necessary party and, therefore, the same is required to be deleted.

(2.) IT appears that the present writ petition is arising out of inter se dispute of the parties and State has nothing to do. Respondent No. 1 is ordered to be deleted from the array of the parties.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has pointed out by referring para 5 to the writ petition that the present petitioner has also moved an application before the court below on 02.03.2012 raising all the points and the said application is still pending for the reason of non availability of the court, but now, the court is available and, therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case and more particularly, in view of the fact that the application filed by defendant No. 3 dated 10.12.2009 is still pending, likewise, the application filed by the present petitioner dated 02.03.2012 is also pending and, therefore, both the applications are required to be heard expeditiously since the suit was disposed of on the basis of settlement arrived at between the parties. Subsequently, one the parties i.e. defendant No. 3 raised the issues by his application dated 10.12.2009 and, therefore, it is desirable that the applications filed by defendant No. 3 as well as the present petitioner are dealt with and decided by the court below at the earliest so that no further ambiguity can exist.