NARESH MAHTO Vs. DURGA MAHTO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners, who were plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 40 of 2003, which was fifed by them for partition of the joint family properties of petitioner no. 1 and his co -sharers. Petitioners no. 2 and 3.are his minor sons, whereas defendant no. 1 is his father and defendant no. 2 is his mother and defendants no. 3 to 6 are his brothers.

(2.) THE petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 11.2.2005 passed in the aforesaid suit, by which the learned Subordinate Judge IV, Begusarai allowed the petition of opposite party no. 7 under Order I Rule 10. of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that she is admittedly the legally married wife of petitioner no. 1 and mother of petitioners no. 2 and 3.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and after perusing the materials on record, it is not in dispute that intervenor -opposite party no. 7 is the wife of petitioner no. 1 and mother of petitioners no. 2 and 3 and a divorce case has been filed by petitioner no. 1, which is pending before the court. The learned court below has also considered the claim of intervenor -opposite party no. 7 that petitioner no. 1 has remarried and the second wife is living with him and hence the interest of the intervenor and her two minor sons will naturally be disturbed, although petitioner no. 1 has denied this allegation but a petition to remove him from the guardianship of the minors is also pending. Hence due to the pendency of a number of litigations and in the special circumstances of the case, the learned court below has found that the intervenor -opposite party no. 7 is a necessary party to the suit.