RUMI DEVI Vs. SHIV SHANKAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1. In spite of service of notice, other respondents have not entered appearance in this case. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 20.3.2012 passed by learned Sub-Judge-III, Siwan in Title Suit No. 65 of 2000 whereby the learned Court below has directed the petitioner to adduce evidence to prove that she is the daughter of the plaintiff and further that she would be added as defendant in the suit if she is held to be daughter of the defendant. The said Suit No. 65 of 2000 has been filed by Respondent 1st Set. The petitioner filed an application for intervention under Order I, Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') claiming herself to be daughter of the plaintiff from the first wife of the plaintiff. In view of the dispute raised by the parties to the suit as regards the fact that the petitioner is daughter of the plaintiff, the learned Court below by impugned order decided to proceed with an enquiry as to whether the petitioner is daughter of the plaintiff or not.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that holding an enquiry at this stage would amount to conducting a mini trial which is not permissible. He submits that as issues have not been framed so far, no prejudice will be caused to any of the parties if the petitioner was allowed to be impleaded as party defendant in the said suit.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent 1st set/the plaintiff supports the impugned order and contend that in view of the serious dispute over the fact that petitioner is the daughter of plaintiff, the Court below rightly proceeded to hold an enquiry before permitting her to be as a party defendant to the suit. He submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order.