JASBIR KAUR Vs. KASHMIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Despite the service of notice, the respondent No.1, 3 and 12 are not represented.

(2.) This revision petition is arising from an interlocutory order passed by the trial Court while permitting the plaintiff (respondent No.1 herein) to file a representative suit for partition of the immovable property under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC. It would be noticed here that the plaintiff, while filing the suit, stated that since there are numerous co-owners of the property, therefore, he may be permitted to give notice via publication in accordance with Order I Rule 8 CPC which has been permitted. It is observed that every co-owner has an individual interest in a suit for partition. There is no community of interest between the various co-owners in such suits. Order I Rule 8 CPC is applicable when there are numerous persons having the same interest. In fact, in a suit for partition, every party, be it the plaintiff or the defendant, has his own interest to secure. Moreover, in a suit for partition, the names of various co-owners can be obtained from the revenue record or the municipal record as the case may be to ensure proper service of notice.

(3.) It would be noticed here that the plaintiff prays for partition of the property located in the revenue estate of Jind, which is an urban area.