- (1.) Aggrieved by order dated 21.08.2012 in Partition Suit No. 73 of 1997, the present writ petition has been filed.
(2.) In Title Partition Suit No. 73 of 1997 the vendor of the petitioner namely, Meghan Sao was defendant no. 5. The petitioner purchased land comprised in plot no. 208, khata no. 5 in village-Mandu through registered sale deed dated 16.05.1970 for valuable consideration and he came in possession of the said property. The land purchased by the petitioner was included in Schedule-B Property in Partition Suit No. 73 of 1997. The petitioner filed application under Order I Rule 10 CPC on 26.06.2012 for impleading himself in pending partition suit. The said application has been dismissed on the ground that purchaser is not a necessary party and his impleadment would delay the disposal of partition suit which is about 15 years old.
(3.) A perusal of application under Order I Rule 10 r/w Section 151 CPC filed by the petitioner discloses that the petitioner has claimed purchase of about 0.31 acres of land in plot no. 2008, khata no. 5 from Meghnath Mahto through registered sale deed dated 16.05.1970. The partition suit was filed in the year, 1997 and thus, the petitioner is not a purchaser subsequent to the institution of the partition suit. Normally, in a partition suit a stranger is not permitted to intervene however, a purchaser claiming interest over a part of the suit property is entitled to protect his right flowing from the sale deed. The right claimed by the petitioner is not a peripheral right rather it is a substantial right flowing from the sale deed dated 16.05.1970 which was executed 27 years prior to institution of the partition suit. The reason assigned by the trial court that a purchaser would get interest in the property only to the extent his vendor is held entitled in the partition suit is no doubt correct however, the trial court has failed to notice object behind Order I Rule 10 CPC.;