OM PRAKASH AND OTHERS Vs. SAROJ & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The aforesaid petition, is directed, against the disaffirmative orders pronounced by the learned trial Court, upon, an application cast before it, by the defendants, under the provisions of Order 7, Rule 11, CPC, wherethrough, the, defendants espoused for rejection, of the plaint, (a) on the ground qua the plaintiff failing to embody in the suit for partition, certain properties, as, disclosed, in the apt application. The plaintiff had instituted a suit for partition, of, the joint properties, and, had impleaded all apt co-owners thereof, as, defendants. A perusal of the plaint, does, bear out the factum, of the plaintiff's suit, for partition of the undivided properties, jointly held by her, with, the defendants, not, obviously including, the, properties reflected by the defendants, in their application, as, subsequently cast before the learned trial Court, under, the provisions, of, Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC.

(2.) Before proceeding to determine, the predominant fact, whether, any suit for partial partition, of, property(ies) held joinlty amongst the plaintiff, and, the defendants, is maintainable, it, is deemed imperative, to allude, to the provisions borne in Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:-

(3.) Be that as it may, it is also enjoined to be determined, whether the plaintiff, was, enjoined to cast, a suit for partition, only with respect, to, some of the properties jointly held by her, with, the defendants or whether the suit for partial partition, of, all the joint suit properties, was or was not hence maintainable. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/respondent, has, contended with vigour, that, it being insagacious, to make any insistence, upon, the plaintiff/respondent herein, to cast a suit, for, partition qua all undivided suit properties, jointly held by her hence with the defendants.