LAKSHMAN RAM Vs. BRAHMA NAND SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petitioner by way of this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has prayed for quashing the order dated 20.8.2009 passed by the learned Munsiff, Garhwa in Partition suit No. 12 of 2003 whereby the learned court below rejected the petition filed by the present petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleading him as a party defendant in the suit. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the respondents. Perused the impugned order as well as other materials placed on record.

(2.) On perusal of the impugned order it transpires that the present petitioner has purchased the land measuring an area of 0.03-3/4 acre from one Maini Kunwar wife of Late Ramdeo Bind vide registered sale deed No. 4314 dated 15.6.1992 and he came in peaceful possession over the land and he has got mutated his name by the State of Bihar and constructed residential house over the said plot and residing therein. It also appears that the suit for partition is pending between two joint purchasers and the petitioner is also claiming his share as a purchaser from one of the co-sharers i.e. Maini Kunwar wife of Late Ramdeo Bind. From perusal of the impugned order it also transpires that the court below has not properly appreciated this aspect of the matter and rejected the application on the ground that the present petitioner is not necessary and proper party to the proceedings. While deciding the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure the court below is required to consider as to whether the presence of third party is necessary to enable the court effectively and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit.

(3.) In the case of Savitri Devi Vs. District Judge Gorakhpur, 1999 2 SCC 577, the Hon'ble Apex Court, while deciding a case under order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C. held in para-9 as follows:-