SHANTI BAI Vs. SUSHILA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners- applicants have filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 17.5.2012, (Ann. P-1), passed by Additional Civil Judge, Class-II, Gadarwara in COS No. 19-A/2011 whereby their application, filed under Order 1, Rule 10 of CPC (Ann. P-4) to implead them as a party in a suit filed by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 against respondent nos. 3 to 7 with impleading the respondent no.8 - State of M.P. as formal party for declaration, perpetual injunction and partition with some other reliefs, has been dismissed.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition in short are that respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein filed above mentioned suit against respondent nos. 3 to 7 for declaration and perpetual injunction and partition of the property described in the plaint, (Ann. P-2). In pendency of such suit on behalf of petitioners, the above mentioned application contending that Ramesh Kumar Bramin, the husband of respondent no. 1, while the father of respondent no. 2 was the brother of the petitioners- applicants while the respondent nos. 3 and 4 are their parents and the respondents no. 5 to 7 are their brothers. In continuation, it is stated that the petitioners are also having the right, title and share in the disputed property but in order to deprive them from their such right and shares, they have not been impleaded as party in the suit. If they are not impleaded as party in the matter then they will have to suffer a lot and they have to file their separate suit by spending lot of money. With these averments, prayer to implead them as party in the matter is made.

(3.) In the reply of respondent nos. 1 and 2, the averments of the aforesaid IA, (Ann. P-5), regarding the rights, share and title of the petitioners in the alleged property are denied. In addition to it, it is stated that the petitioners are married and their shares in the property has already been given at the time of their marriage. It is also stated that the petitioners are not necessary party in the matter and only on the ground of that if they are not impleaded as party, then they will have to file separate suit by allowing their application, they could not be impleaded as party in the matter.