MEENA DEVI Vs. KAILASH DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dtd. 12/12/2022 passed in Misc. Case No. 227/1996 by learned Additional District Judge-XIV, Patna whereby and whereunder the petition of the intervener/petitioner dtd. 30/7/2010 filed under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) read with Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') has been rejected along with another petition filed by some other persons under Sec. 151 of the Code.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioner is that she had purchased the land bearing Khata No. 145, Khesra No. 3205 area 4275 sq.ft. (3 decimals), Khata No. 763, Khesra No. 3206 area 5 decimals and Khata No. 145, Khesra No. 3207 area 6 decimals on 16/10/2008 from one Krishna Dutta, son of Late Shiv Lal Sao vide a registered sale deed. The petitioner came to know about Misc. Case No. 227/1996 between Bhagwat Prasad and Krishna Dutta, which has been going on with regard to partition of joint family property in the light of judgment/order dtd. 10/10/1996 passed in Civil Appeal No. 7475/1994 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court modified the decree passed by the High Court with certain directions. The land in question purchased by the petitioner fell in share of Krishna Dutta being part of Schedule II property of Partition Award and the nature of land is 'ditch'. The petitioner claims as per schedule of Partition Award and direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the land came in possession and ownership of Krishna Dutta and the petitioner purchased the same after payment of consideration amount and came into possession of said land. After coming to know about the pendency of Misc. Case No. 227/1996, the petitioner filed a petition under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Code for adding her as party in Misc. Case No. 227/1996. A rejoinder to the petition was filed on behalf of the respondents opposing the prayer of the petitioner. The learned Additional District Judge after hearing the parties dismissed the petition dtd. 30/7/2010 finding no merit in it vide order dtd. 12/12/2022. The said order is under challenge before this Court.

(3.) Prior to entering into the submission of the parties, it would be beneficial to take stock of chronology of the events leading to institution of Misc. Case No. 227/1996.