PRATAP BEURA Vs. RAJKISORE BEURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

(2.) Order dtd. 6/4/2024 (Annexure-1) passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kujang in C.S. No.305 of 2020 is under challenge in this CMP, whereby an application filed by the Plaintiffs-Petitioners under Order XVIII Rule 1 CPC to direct the Defendants to begin the suit, has been rejected.

(3.) Mr. Bose, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the suit has been filed for partition, declaration that RSD Nos.1102 and 1103 dtd. 10/6/1992 executed by Defendant Nos.1 to 3 in favour of Defendant Nos.4 to 6 is beyond their entitlement and thus, void. A prayer for permanent injunction has also been sought for. The Plaintiffs in the plaint have categorically stated that there has been no partition by metes and bounds between the parties. The Defendant Nos.1 to 3 are entitled to eight anna share, i.e., Ac.0/1/500 Sqlinks in the suit property. But, they have alienated property to Defendant Nos.4 to 6 by virtue of the sale deeds in question, which is beyond their entitlement. Hence, the suit has been filed for the aforesaid relief. The Defendant Nos.1 to 3 filed their written statement admitting that there has been a partition by metes and bounds and thus no further claim for partition by the Plaintiffs is maintainable. Hence, the Plaintiffs filed an application under Order XVIII Rule 1 CPC to direct Defendants Nos.1 to 3 to begin the suit. Learned trial Court on a misconception that the Defendants have not admitted that there has been a partition by metes and bounds, refused the prayer. Hence, this CMP has been filed.