RAMJEE SINGH Vs. KAPILDEO SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 20.6.98 passed by 7th Subordinate Judge, Siwan in Title Suit No.286 of 1992, whereby and whereunder application filed by intervenor defendants '' opposite parties under Order 8 Rule 6A of the Civil Procedure Code has been allowed.

(2.) BEFORE going into the disputed fact the genealogy is required to be reiterated for the purpose of coming to a just decision in the matter. One Baiju Mahto was the original title holder. He had several sons including Kewal and Banshi. The plaintiff Ramji happens to be son of Kewal, while original defendants are the heirs of lowest degree of another son Bhikhari. As per the plaintiff 'sversion, Nagina the heir of Banshi died issueless and heirless and, as such, the plaintiff being in the higher decree than that of the defendants, the property belonging to Nagina had been devolved on the plaintiff by way of reversion. While the suit was at the fag end of trial namely after conclusion of evidence of both parties and when argument was heard from one side then the intervenor defendants namely opposite party nos. 24 to 27 came up with a petition on 19.11.97 under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. contending for intervening inter alia that they happen to be heirs of another son of Kewal and that they have got interest over the suit property and hence they should be impleaded or should be allowed to intervene in the suit. Although objection was raised from the side of the plaintiff the said petition was allowed. No revision petition was preferred against the allowance of the petition under Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. The added defendants filed written statement and curiously enough in para 12 of the written statement they have categorically stated that they have no interest over the suit property meaning thereby they denied the ground on which their intervention petition was allowed earlier under Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. On receipt of copy of the written statement, the plaintiff filed a petition on 22.1.96 to strike down the names of defendants interveners from the suit as they are neither necessary nor formal parties to the suit. In the meantime interveners filed another petition under Order 8 Rule 6A of the Code of Civil Procedure contending inter alia that as they have got grievance regarding not giving proper share to them by the plaintiff in their father Kewal 'sproperty, those properties should be brought within the suit and on partition by metes and bounds the intervenors ' interest should be separated and final decree should be passed on partition in respect of the property of Kewal. Serious objections were raised from the side of the plaintiff that defendants had got no scope to make such sort of counter claim when subject matter of counter claim has got no nexus with the subject matter of the present suit. Both parties were heard on the petition filed from the side of the plaintiff for striking the names of intervenors and also the petition filed by the intervenors under Order 8 Rule 6A of the C.P.C. and by the impugned order petition of striking down filed by the plaintiff had been rejected by single stroke of pen while allowing the prayer under Order 8 Rule 6A C.P.C. regarding counter claim of the intervenors - defendants. Hence this revision petition.

(3.) BEFORE going into the question of nexus and others regarding Order 8 Rule 6A petition of the defendants -