JHALKI MANDALIAN Vs. BISHESHWAR MANDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petitioners by way of filing this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India have prayed for quashing the order dated 18.5.2006 passed in Title Partition Suit No. 144 of 2003 by the learned Sub -Judge, 3rd at Deoghar whereby the petition filed by the petitioners under order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the respondent. Perused the impugned order and other materials placed on record.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the respondents while justifying the order passed by the learned court below submitted that the learned court below after careful consideration of the facts and circumstances involved in the case passed reasoned order that the petitioners are not necessary and/or proper parties to the suit and in support of his submission he has referred to and 6/5/2014 Page 68 Akhaury Brajesh Kumar Versus State Of Jharkhand relied upon the decision in the case of Mumbai International Airport Private Ltd Vs Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Private Limited and ors. reported in (2010)7SCC 417 and by referring paragraph 24 of the said judgment the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that if a plaintiff makes an application for impleading as party defendant on the ground that he is a necessary party, the court may implead him having regard to the provisions of Order 1 Rules 9 & 10(2) of C.P.C provides that if the claim against such a person is barred by limitation, it may refuse to add him as a party and it may even dismiss the suit for non - joinder of a necessary party.