D.N. Patel, J. - (1.) THE present writ petition has been preferred against the order passed by learned Subordinate Judge -I, Deoghar in Title (Partition) Suit No. 100 of 2003 dated 29th November, 2007, whereby, the application given by the intervener under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, who are present Petitioners, for joining as party Defendants in the aforesaid suit, has been rejected and, therefore, those interveners have preferred this writ petition mainly for the reason that they are vitally interested in the outcome of the suit. They have given a detailed chart, genealogical table revealing the fact how they are deriving right, title and interest in the suit property in their application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(2.) IT is vehemently submitted by learned Counsel for the Petitioners that they are vitally interested in the suit property, therefore, they had preferred an application for joining them as party Defendants. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the trial Court and, hence, the order passed by the trial Court deserves to be quashed and set aside and the Petitioners may be directed to join as party Defendants in Title (Partition) Suit No. 100 of 2003. When the matter is called out, neither the matter is mentioned nor anybody appears on behalf of the Respondents, though the notice has already been served upon them.
(3.) HAVING heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I hereby quash and set aside the order passed by learned Subordinate Judge -I, Deoghar in Title (Partition) Suit No. 100 of 2003 dated 29th November, 2007 for the following facts and reasons: (i) The present Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are the original Plaintiffs, who have instituted Title (Partition) Suit No. 100 of 2003 and the present Respondent Nos. 5 to 17 are the original Defendants in the aforesaid suit. (ii) It appears that an application was given by the present Petitioners under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the read with Section 152 thereof to the effect that they may be joined as party Defendants in the aforesaid suit mainly for the reason stated in the application that they are deriving right, title and interest in the suit property. A detailed genealogical table has been given and it is also, prima facie, evident that the original Plaintiffs are the successors in title from Dhano Kahar, the name of father of Dhano Kahar is Laxman Kahar. Thus, the original Plaintiffs are the branches of the Laxman Kahar, whereas, the present Petitioners, who have preferred an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for joining them as party Defendants are deriving right, title and interest from Lalit Kahar. Thus, looking to the genealogical table given by the present Petitioners in their application for joining them as party Defendants, it appears that Laxman Kahar and Lalit Kahar are brothers and sons of one Bipat Kahar. Thus, the present Petitioners have given whole detail that Bipat Kahar was having three sons, namely, Laxman Kahar, Lalit Kahar and Chhotan Kahar. (iii) It further appears from the facts of the case that Plaintiffs' side persons are deriving title through Laxman Kahar, whereas, the present Petitioners are legal heirs of Lalit Kahar's side. Thus, looking to the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumtibai and Ors. v. Paras Finance Co. and Ors. reported in : (2007) 10 SCC 82, it appears that the present Petitioners ought to have been joined as party Defendants in Title (Partition) Suit No. 100 of 2003. Paragraph 14 of the aforesaid decision read as under: 14. In view of the aforesaid decisions we are of the opinion that Kasturi case is clearly distinguishable. In our opinion it cannot be laid down as an absolute proposition that whenever a suit for specific performance is filed by A against B, a third party C can never be impleaded in that suit. In our opinion, if C can show a fair semblance of title or interest he can certainly file an application for impleadment. To take a contrary view would lead to multiplicity of proceedings because then C will have to wait until a decree is passed against B, and then file a suit for cancellation of the decree on the ground that A had no title in the property in dispute. Clearly, such a view cannot be countenanced. (iv) It has also been held by this Court in the case of Sarita Kataruka v. Jai Kishore Nath Shahdeo and Ors. reported in, 2009 (4) JLJR 355 that the provisions of Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not mandatory rather procedural in nature. (v) Thus, if the present Petitioners have semblance of right, title and interest in the suit property, they ought to have been impleaded as party Defendants. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the trial Court.;