RAMABALLAHABA MISHRA Vs. SOMANATH SATPATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 29.01.2015 passed by the learned 2nd Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Cuttack in C.S. No. 621 of 1988 allowing an application filed by defendant No. 1 under Order 26, Rule 10-A of C.P.C. for examination of certain documents by handwriting expert.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner as plaintiff filed T.S No. 621 of 1988 before the learned 2nd Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Cuttack for partition of Schedule 'B' properties wherein the plaintiff has 8 annas interest and defendant nos. 1 to 10 also have 8 annas interest. In the plaint it was pleaded that Narahari Mishra and Chintamani Satpathy were first friends. Both agreed to have 8 annas interest each over the suit properties and 8 annas interest in the suit property of Chintamani Satpathy were sold by his legal heirs to defendant nos. 11 to 21. After death of Narahari, Chintamani continued paying the profit of the business to the heirs of Narahari till November, 1956. Chintamani died on 21.12.1959. During his life time he wrote letter regarding payment of the profit of business to the heirs of Narahari. The plaintiff and defendant nos. 1 to 10 are in joint possession of the suit properties and there has been no partition of the same by metes and bounds. Due to alienation's there was inconvenience in possession of the plaintiff for which he filed the suit for partition. In the Major Settlement though the plaintiff raised claim, the Settlement authorities rejected his claim as the dispute between the parties being civil in nature.

(3.) The defendant nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 appeared in the suit and filed their written statement contending inter alia that the suit is barred by limitation and non joinder of necessary parties. The plaintiff has no right, title, interest and possession over the suit properties to the extent of 8 annas. The defendants have partitioned their properties for convenient of their family since 30 years and enjoying the same peacefully with the knowledge of the plaintiff. Therefore, the claim of the plaintiff that the properties are being enjoyed jointly is vague.