- (1.) This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 1.6.2009, passed by learned Sub Judge-IX, Ranchi, in Title Suit no. 170 of 2004, by which the petition filed on behalf of respondent nos. 3 to 7 herein for adding them party has been allowed.
(2.) It is submitted by Mr. Shivnath that learned trial court failed to take into consideration that their presence is not required for adjudicating the dispute between the plaintiff and the defendants. The respondents supported the impugned order.
(3.) After hearing the parties and on considering the matter in detail and on giving cogent reasons, the order impugned has been passed by the trial court, which inter alia reads as follows: "In this suit, the suit property is/was of Motilal Kasera. The intervenors Shakuntala and Asha Devi are the daughter-in-law ( son's wife) of Motilal Kasera. The inteveners Darshan Kumar, Roshan Kumar and Gulshan Kumar are the grandsons of Motilal Kasera. The date of death of Motilal Kasera and Suresh Lal Kasera is a relevant issue. The date of marriage of Asha Devi is also a relevant fact. The date of birth of grandsons is also a relevant fact. A legal question of succession revolves upon these relevant dates, which requires to be decided for an effective and complete adjudication of the suit. In case of Aliji Monoji & Co. V/s. Lalji Mavji and others, 1996 5 SCC 379, their lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court have been pleased to define proper party as-where the presence of a party is necessary for complete and effectual adjudication of the dispute, though, no relief is sought, it is proper party. In this suit, the intervenors have been able to bring forward sufficient particulars to impose themselves as proper parties".;