RATTAN MALA JAIN Vs. PREM CHAND JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition by the wife of defendant No. 2 is directed against the judgment and decree dated November 19, 1985 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Delhi.

(2.) Prem Chand Jain, plaintiff had filed a suit tor partition of HUF property against his father and three brothers. It was alleged that the plaintiff had 1/5th share in the property and each of the defendants had got 1/5th share. A preliminary decree was passed by the then Addl. District Judge on 28-2-1933 for partition of the property in accordance with the said shares and a local commissioner was appointed to suggest the mode of partition. The local commissioner consequently filed his report. Against the report of the local commissioner, only defendants Nos, 3 and 4 filed objections but at the time of hearing, defendants Nos. 3 and 4 absented themselves. The learned Addl. District Judge found that the objections, in any case, bad no merit and consequently dismissed the same. He accepted the report of the local commissioner and passed the final decree.

(3.) At the stage of final decree, the petitioner, who is the wife defendant No. 2, filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for being impleaded as a party. Initially the application was filed only on her own behalf, but later a supplementary application was filed wherein she had stated that besides her. the minor children should also be taken to be applicants and should be impleaded as parties. It was stated in the application that a fraud was being played on her and the minor children inasmuch as the suit was a collusive one and defendant No. 2, in order to oust her, had accepted an inferior share in the property. The application was also dismissed on the ground that as long as defendant No. 2 was alive the petitioner had no locus standi to file objections to the report of the local commissioner or being impleaded as a party.