BABULAL MAHTO Vs. HARIHAR MAHTO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notice upon the Opposite parties have been effected and they have not appeared and in view of that this matter was adjourned on 15/1/2025 with a view to provide one more opportunity to the Opposite parties, and today again, nobody appeared on behalf of the Opposite parties on repeated calls. In view of that, this petition is being heard in absence of the Opposite parties.

(2.) This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dtd. 9/3/2022 passed by the learned Additional Munsif-X, Giridih in Original Suit No.1423 of 2019, arising out of Partition Suit No.91 of 2017, whereby the petition filed under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Sec. 151 C.P.C. filed by the petitioners has been rejected.

(3.) Mr. Mukhopadhyay, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the suit was instituted for partition. He further submits that during pendency of the suit Mangori Devi died leaving behind her husband Kalu Mahto and one son Tribhuwan Verma and two daughters namely Usha Devi and Fulmati Devi. He submits that death of the defendant no.32 was not known to the plaintiffs and in view of that, when it has come to his knowledge, a petition was filed for substituting the name of the legal heirs/successors of the defendant no.32 as defendant nos.32(a) to 32(d). He submits that the learned court has dismissed the same on the ground of limitation and further it has been pointed out that the petition has not been filed under the correct provision of law. He submits that said order may kindly be set aside.