MD. KAMALUDDIN Vs. LAXMI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned-counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 1. The petitioner in the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is aggrieved by an order dated 21.4.2009 passed in Title Suit No. 254 of 2000 by learned Sub-Judge-I, Patna, whereby application filed by the petitioner for his impleadment as party in the said suit has been rejected.

(2.) Certain facts are admitted. One Jagan Ram died on 19.1.1985 leaving behind his widow Nago Devi and two sons Shiv Ram Prasad and Binay Prasad. The said Jagan Ram during his lifetime, had acquired a property from Indrapuri Sahkari Grih Nirman Sammittee Limited, having an area of 2148 sq. ft. Nago Devi filed the suit seeking partition of the said property vide Suit No. 254 of 2000 on 9.6.2000. However, prior to filing of the suit, second son of Jagan Ram, namely, Binay Prasad by a registered sale deed dated 4.5.2000 had transferred part of the property to Birendra Kumar Singh. Shiv Ram, Binay Prasad and Birendra Kumar Singh were thus impleaded as defendants No. 1, 2 and 3 in the said suit. They have been impleaded as Respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 in the present application respectively. Respondent No. 4, Birendra Kumar Singh by a registered sale deed dated 23.7.2005 transferred the property purchased by him in favour of Tabassum Haider and Shahnaz Haider. Subsequently, Tabassum Haider and Shahnaz Haider transferred the said property to the petitioner on 16.10.2007 by a registered sale deed. The petitioner thereafter, filed an application under Order I rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure for his impleadment as party defendant in the suit. The Court below however, has rejected the said application by the impugned order dated 21.4.2009 on the ground that the petitioner was not at all a necessary party in the partition suit and complete adjudication of the suit would not be hampered even in the absence of the petitioner.

(3.) This is to be noted that in the meanwhile, Respondent No. 3 had filed his written statement on 10.11.2000 and Respondent No. 4 had filed his written statement on 13.3.2001. This is to be clarified, at the cost of repetition, that Respondent No. 3 is vendor of Respondent No. 4 and Respondent No. 4 is vendor of Tabassum Haider and Shahnaz Haider, from whom the petitioner purchased the part of the suit property.