- (1.) THE present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 15.11.11 passed by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Jaipur Mahanagar, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Civil Suit No. 353/09, whereby the trial court has dismissed the application of the petitioner filed under Order I Rule 10 of CPC for impleading the executor of the Will, as the party-defendant.
(2.) THE short facts giving rise to the present petition are that the respondent No.1 (original plaintiff) has filed the suit before the trial court against the present petitioner and the respondent No.3 (original-defendants) seeking dissolution of the partnership firm and for rendition of accounts. THE suit has been contested by the petitioner-defendant No.2 by filing written statement. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner submitted an application under Order I Rule 10 of CPC for impleading the Raja Dhiraj, the executor of the Will dated 24.11.80 of Satya Prem Kumari as party-defendant in the said suit. THE said application has been dismissed by the trial court by the impugned order. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present petition invoking supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed. It has been submitted by the learned Sr. counsel Mr. S.M. Mehta for the petitioner that there was no partnership firm existing between the parties as alleged by the respondents-plaintiffs and that the property in question was bequeathed to the petitioner by the owner deceased Satya Prem Kumari under the Will dated 24.11.80. According to the learned Sr. counsel Mr. Mehta for the petitioner, the executor of the Will being the representative of the deceased, as per Section 211 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 he would be a proper party and, therefore, was required to be impleaded in the suit. The learned counsel Mr. Alankar Khanna, appearing on caveat for the respondents, however, supporting the impugned order passed by the trial court has submitted that there being no jurisdictional error committed by the trial court, the petition deserves to be dismissed. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and to the impugned order passed by the trial court it appears that the application of the petitioner filed under Order I Rule 10 of CPC has been dismissed by the trial court by holding that the petitioner could examine the executor of the Will as the witness and as such there is no requirement of joining the executor of the Will as party-defendant in the suit filed by the plaintiff for dissolution of the partnership firm and for rendition of accounts. There being no jurisdictional error committed by the trial court, this court exercising limited supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not inclined to interfere with the said order. The petition being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. ;