- (1.) THE present petitioners by way of filing this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India have prayed for quashing the order dated 18.5.2006 passed in Title Partition Suit No. 144 of 2003 by the learned Sub -Judge, 3rd at Deoghar whereby the petition filed by the petitioners under order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected.
(2.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the respondent. Perused the impugned order and other materials placed on record. It appears that original plaintiffs filed Title Partition suit No. 79 of 2002/144 of 2003 before the court below against 42 defendants for partition of the property and during pendency of the said suit the present petitioners moved an application for impleading party respondents in the said suit. The petitioners' claim is based on the documents which are annexed with the petition vide annexures 2,5 and 6. It appears that the learned court below while dealing with the said application reached to the conclusion that the present petitioners are not necessary and proper party to the proceeding as the petitioners have applied for the land under the Bhoodan Yagya Scheme and they have been alloted a piece of land under the said scheme. The another reason assigned by the court below is that in the written statement filed by the defendants no. 34 to 42 issue regarding non - joinder and mis -joinder of necessary parties was not raised and third reason assigned by the court below is that the name of the petitioners is not mentioned in the voters list and therefore, the learned court below found that they were not necessary and proper party to the proceeding. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in support of his submission by referring paragraph -5 of the written statement filed by the defendants 10,15 -18 and 20 -29 pointed out that the defendants have raised specific plea before the court below that Genealogical table set forth by the plaintiffs are not correct and it is incomplete genealogy and it is the suppression of facts. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners by referring internal page -7 of the written statement filed by these defendants pointed out about specific averments made in the written statement regarding false genealogical table and thereby suppression of the name of the present petitioners. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has also pointed out from the written statement filed by the above defendants which has been annexed as annexure -2, that from genealogical table given by the defendants it appears that the petitioners are the necessary and proper party to the suit.
(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the respondents while justifying the order passed by the learned court below submitted that the learned court below after careful consideration of the facts and circumstances involved in the case passed reasoned order that the petitioners are not necessary and/or proper parties to the suit and in support of his submission he has referred to and 6/5/2014 Page 68 Akhaury Brajesh Kumar Versus State Of Jharkhand relied upon the decision in the case of Mumbai International Airport Private Ltd Vs Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Private Limited and ors. reported in (2010)7SCC 417 and by referring paragraph 24 of the said judgment the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that if a plaintiff makes an application for impleading as party defendant on the ground that he is a necessary party, the court may implead him having regard to the provisions of Order 1 Rules 9 & 10(2) of C.P.C provides that if the claim against such a person is barred by limitation, it may refuse to add him as a party and it may even dismiss the suit for non - joinder of a necessary party.;