ARUN KUMAR Vs. NARESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Plaintiff-Respondents filed the suit being Suit No. 197 of 1992, which has been renumbered as Original Suit No. 410 of 2003, Naresh Kumarv. Ranjeet Kumar and Ors., for partition of the properties belonging to the Joint Hindu Family. In the suit, Sri Madan Lai was Defendant No. 14, who is the father of the Petitioner. In the aforesaid suit, the Petitioner moved the application on 6th March, 2010, under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for his impleadment in the suit on the ground that he is the coparcener of the Joint Hindu Family and is entitled for the share in the property in dispute. The said application has been rejected by the Trial Court vide order dated 19.4.2010 and the revision against the said order has also been dismissed by the impugned order dated 9.12.2010.

(2.) The Trial Court has held that the Petitioner's father is Defendant No. 14 and on behalf of the father, the Petitioner was doing Pairavi of the case and appearing in the Court regularly. It is further observed that the Petitioner is deriving his share through father, who is already party in the suit. The application has been moved at a belated stage. In the order, the Court has referred some of the agreements entered into between the parties.

(3.) The revisional authority has held that in the suit, the Petitioner appeared on behalf of his father, who was Defendant No. 14, on 10.5.2005, 26.11.2008, 23.12.2008, 7.1.2009, 24.2.2009, 7.3.2009, 1.4.2009, 10.4.2009, 23.4.2009, 7.7.2009, 15.7.2009 and 19.8.2009. The father of the Petitioner has already filed his reply. The evidences have been closed and the case is listed for final hearing, therefore, the application moved by the Petitioner, which is highly belated, is not acceptable.