SHAKUNTALA DEVI Vs. MALIK MANDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been filed for review of this Court 'sorder dated 17.02.2006 whereby the petitioners ' prayer under I.A. No. 2451/05 under F.A. No. 35 of 1999 for adding the petitioners as party under Order I, Rule 10 C.P.C. was refused.

(2.) THE trial court decided under Issue No. 6 that the defendant nos. 5 and 6 (respondent nos. 3 and 4 in the appeal) are son and daughter of defendant no. 1 which finding is challenged in the F.A. No. 35 of 1999 by the appellant Sant Lal who is now dead and his heirs are already on record. During the appeal, the intervenor -petitioner Shakuntala Devi purchased the property from respondent nos. 3 and 4 (defendant nos. 5 and 6). The prayer of the intervenor -petitioner was rejected by this court 'sorder dated 17th February, 2006 on the ground that the intervenor -petitioner was not a necessary party for deciding Issue No. 6 which was subject to this appeal.

(3.) WHILE arguing the review petition, learned counsel for the petitioner cited the authority of the Apex Court in the case of Dhanurdhar Prasad Singh V/s. Jai Prakash University and Others, AIR 2001 SC 2552. It was a case of devolution of estate on the death of a party and in that case the Apex Court held that the person on whom the interest has devolved was a necessary party to be added under Order XXII, Rule 10 C.P.C. though in Para -25 of the judgment. It was also held by the Apex Court that prayer for leave to add party can be made not only by a person upon whom interest has devolved but also by the plaintiff or any other party or person interested.