SUMITRA DEVI Vs. SITASHARAN BUBAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners (defendants), learned counsel for opposite party 1st Set (plaintiff) and learned counsel opposite parties No. 31 and 32 (opposite party 3rd Set) (intervenors in the final decree proceeding ). The aforesaid parties are the only main contesting parties in the instant matter.

(2.) THIS civil revision has been filed by defendants challenging order dated 3-6-2008 by which the learned Subordinate judge, 1, Sitamarhi, allowed intervention petition of opposite parties 3rd Set and added them party to the final decree proceeding of Title Suit No. 56 of 1960.

(3.) IT is not in dispute that plaintiff-opposite party 1st Set filed Title Suit No. 56 of 1960 for partition of their 1/3rd share which was decreed on contest in favour of the plaintiff and preliminary decree of partition dated 25-2-1964 was prepared. Thereafter a petition for preparation of final decree was filed in the year 1987 in which Pleader Commissioner was appointed for Taktabandi etc and he submitted his report dated 25-7-1992 to the learned Subordinate Judge 1, Sitamarhi, before whom the proceeding for preparation of final decree was pending, but although no objection was raised to the said report nor the said preliminary decree had ever been challenged, the matter for preparation of final decree is still pending even after 16 years of the submission of the report.