(1.) RESPONDENT Nos. 1 to 10 filed O. S. No. 4/1981 against respondent Nos. 11 to 16 for partition and separate possession of plaint schedule properties and the same came to be decreed in part. Subsequently the decree of the trial court came to be confirmed in r. A. No. 68/1987 and finally in R. S. A. No. 700/1993. Thereafter respondent Nos. 1 to 10 filed F. D. P. No. 4/2000 to draw the final decree. In this F. D. P. No. 4/2000 petitioner filed I. A. No. 5 under orderd 1 Rule 10 CPC to implead her as a party to the final decree proceedings. The Trial Court vide order dated 25-11 -2006 dismissed i. A. No. 5 by holding that the petitioner is not a necessary party to the final decree proceedings. Aggrieved by this order of the trial court petitioner filed C. R. P. No. 828/2006 under section 115 CPC. Learned single Judge after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner referred the matter to the Division Bench on the question of maintainability of revision petition under section 115 CPC and the same reads as under
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for petitioner contends, that under the impugned order of the Trial Court the right of the petitioner to implead herself as a party to the final decree proceedings is finally decided. Therefore a civil revision petition is maintainable. It is further contended that the impugned order passed under Orderd 1 Rule 10 CPC is not an appeallable order. Therefore it is contended that civil revision petition under section 115 CPC is maintainable.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for reapondents contend, that the impugned order will not amount to termination of proceedings in F. D. P. No. 4/2000 and as such the civil revision petition under section 115 cpc is not maintainable. It is further contended that proviso to section 115 (1) CPC specifies, that except where the orderd, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision would have finally disposed off the suit or other proceedings. He contends that civil revision petition under section 115 CPC is not maintainable.