Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. - (1.) This writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India wherein the order dated 05.05.2018 passed in Partition Suit No.129 of 2003 by which petition filed by the petitioner/intervener dated 07.09.2017 under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been rejected.
(2.) This Court after going across the pleading made in the writ petition on the factual aspects and more particularly pleading of the Partition Suit, has found that the Partition Suit has been filed by one Gita Devi, D/o. Late Sukhram Lohar, arraying therein (1) Rungtu Lohar (2) Sheo Narayan Lohar (3) Bhotha Lohar and (Raj Kishore Lohar, Shiv Narayan Lohar, and Madho Lohar, and Dilip Oraon. The said partition suit have been filed in the year 2003 wherein the preliminary decree has been passed on 18.11.2011 which was signed on 03.12.2011 against which the appeal has been filed being Title Appeal No.78 of 2011 which has been dismissed against which second appeal, has been decided. The petitioner claims to purchase the property from five Co-sharers who are defendants to the suit namely (1) Rungtu Lohar, who has been substituted (2) Sheo Narayan Lohar (3) Botha Lohar, (4) Raj Kishore Lohar and one (5) Dilip Lohar, by virtue of the sale deed dated 03.03.2001 vide Deed No.2554 as such the petitioner/proposed intervener has filed a petition under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. for her impleadment as party to the proceeding since she has got interest over the property after its purchase by virtue of the registered Sale Deed No.2554 dated 03.03.2001 and if any decree would be passed in her absence, her interest would seriously be jeopardized but the said application has been rejected by the trial court on the ground that the same may cause hindrance in proper adjudication of the present suit.
(3.) Mr. Rajendra Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that merely on the ground of causing hindrance in proper adjudication, the petition filed under Order I Rule 10 of the C.P.C. since has been rejected the same cannot be said to be a valid reason while the court ought to have taken into consideration the fact that she has purchased the said property from five Cosharers namely (1) Rungtu Lohar, (2) Sheo Narayan Lohar, (3) Botha Lohar, (4) Raj Kishore Lohar and one (5) Dilip Lohar prior to institution of the suit i.e., on 03.03.2001 and as such she is a necessary party to be joined in the suit.;