- (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dtd. 19.6.2013 whereby the learned Board of Revenue dismissed the revision petition filed by the plaintiff ­ petitioner on the ground that the impleaded respondents, the purchasers of agricultural land in question from co-sharers could not be dispensed with and their service was necessary in the suit in question.
(2.) THERE were as many as 600 defendants added by the plaintiffs in the partition suit, namely, defendants No.22 to 619 whom the plaintiffs wanted to be deleted from the array of defendants in the suit since their service of summons on them was causing practical problem looking to the large number of the defendants, but the learned Board in the impugned order has found that since the plaintiffs ­ petitioners had impleaded the defendants or they were impleaded on the application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C., the service on them could not be dispensed with. The learned trial Court was justified in passing the order on 28.3.2011 in this regard. The learned counsel for the petitioners ­ plaintiffs also prayed that status quo of the land in question may be maintained till the service is effected by the plaintiffs ­ petitioners, which prayer cannot be accepted at this stage.
(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court is of the opinion that no interference in the impugned order is called for. The learned court below has rightly dismissed the revision petition on the ground that since the purchasers already having been impleaded as defendants by the plaintiffs or on the applications filled by them under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C., their service could not be dispensed with.;