RAJU TIRKEY Vs. DEBU ORAON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case is taken up through Video Conferencing.

(2.) The present C.M.P has been filed for setting aside the order dtd. 1/10/2019 passed by the Sub-Judge-VII, Ranchi in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 402/2019 arising out of Original (Partition) Suit No. 431/2016 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) whereby an application dtd. 22/5/2019 filed by the respondent No.3 under Order I Rule 10 CPC seeking his impleadment as one of the defendants in the said suit has been allowed.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the contents of the present C.M.P including the impugned order dtd. 1/10/2019 passed by the learned Court below. The respondent No.3 filed an application dtd. 22/5/2019 under Order I Rule 10 CPC for impleading him as one of the defendants in the said suit. The said application was duly replied by the plaintiff (the respondent No.1) and the defendants-petitioners. Learned Court below vide the impugned order dtd. 1/10/2019, while allowing the said application filed by the respondent No.3, has held that as per the admitted facts transpiring from the records, Bandhna Oraon had three sons, namely, Somra Oraon, Sukra Oraon and Sohrai Oraon. According to the plaintiff and the defendants of the suit, Somra Oraon and Sohrai Oraon died unmarried and their shares of the property devolved upon the surviving brother, namely, Sukra Oraon, who died leaving behind his two sons i.e. Diwa Oraon and Debu Oraon. Diwa Oraon also died leaving behind his four sons i.e. the petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 and Gandu Tirkey (the deceased father of the petitioner No.4). However, as per the genealogical table filed by the respondent No.3-intervener along with the application under Order I Rule 10 CPC, Somra Oraon had one son, namely, Karma Oraon @ Kado Oraon. Karma Oraon @ Kado Oraon had one son, namely, Bishwanath Tirkey i.e. the father of the respondent No.3. It thus prima-facie appeared to the learned Trial Court that the respondent No.3-intervener was the descendant of Bandhna Oraon. Hence, he was allowed to be impleaded as one of the defendants in the said suit. I see no infirmity in the said order passed by the learned Trial Court as the genealogical table brought on record by the respondent No.3-intervener along with his application filed under Order I Rule 10 CPC was not required to be examined in great detail while considering the said application. The said stage will come during the trial of the suit where all the parties will get ample opportunity to substantiate their respective claims. At the stage of consideration of an application filed under Order I Rule 10 CPC, the Trial Court was required to prima-facie see as to whether on the basis of the materials available before the said Court, the applicant was able to make out a case for impleading him as a party defendant in the said suit.