- (1.) Challenge is to the order dated April 7, 2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Suri in Title Suit No.23 of 2005 thereby rejecting an application filed by the defendants under Order 1 Rule 2 read with Order 2 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(2.) The short fact is that the plaintiffs/opposite parties herein instituted a suit being Title Suit No.23 of 2005 for partition. In that suit, the defendants are contesting by filing a written statement. The suit was at the stage of peremptory hearing. At that time, the defendants/petitioners herein filed an application under Order 1 Rule 2 read with Order 2 Rule 6 of the C.P.C. contending, inter alia, that the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties and non-joinder of causes of action in a single suit. So, they submitted before Court for passing appropriate orders for separate trials in respect of the properties mentioned in the schedule B of the plaint. That application was rejected by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred by the defendants.
(3.) Now the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that the plaintiffs instituted the said title suit being Title Suit No.23 of 2005 for partition mentioning several properties under the two schedules, described as schedule A and Schedule B to the plaint. The plaintiffs have claimed for a decree of partition declaring 7/8th share in the suit properties against the defendants. In that suit, the plaintiffs have also described that as regards schedule B properties, the plaintiffs nos. 1 to 4 only have 4/5th share in the suit properties and the defendants have 1/5th share in the suit properties. But the prayer for decree has been sought for declaring share of the plaintiffs to the extent of 7/8th share in the suit properties meaning thereby the schedule A and as well as schedule B properties.;