Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) The petitioner, who was substituted as defendant no.l(b) on death of his father-defendant no.1, is aggrieved of order dated 02.07.2016 passed in Partition Suit No.39 of 2010 by which the trial court has declined permission to file a separate written statement for taking a stand contrary to the stand of defendant no.1 in his written statement.
(2.) Title Partition Suit No.39 of 2010 was instituted by Dilip Kujur and eight others for a preliminary decree of partition claiming share in schedule 'A' property. Father of the petitioner has been arrayed as defendant no.1. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 are real brothers of defendant no.1 and defendant no.4 is Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga. The defendant nos.1 and 2 filed a joint written statement. Defendant no.3 has filed a separate written statement resisting the prayer for partition of schedule 'A' property. During pendency of the suit the defendant no.1 died on 05.03.2012 and his legal heirs and three of his sons including the petitioner were substituted in his place vide order dated 17.05.2012. The petitioner-defendant no.1(b) appeared in the suit on 28.08.2015 and filed written statement with an application dated 08.01.2016 which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 02.07.2016.
(3.) Contending that on death of his father when the petitioner found that a joint written statement was filed obtaining signature of his father fraudulently, it was necessary for the petitioner to file a separate written statement, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once a plea of fraud has been set-up, the issue must be decided by the trial court.;