MOST. INDIRA CHOUDHARY Vs. ABINASH PRAKASH CHOUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Niraj Kishore, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1, who is the contesting party, being the plaintiff in the suit.

(2.) This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dtd. 11/3/2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)-IX, Ranchi, in O.S. No. 442 of 2014 [MCA No. 1001 of 2023], whereby, the application filed under Order-I, Rule 10(2) of the CPC by the defendant Nos. 1 to 6, 9, 11 and 12 has been rejected by the said court.

(3.) Mr. Niraj Kishore, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the Partition Suit No. 442 of 2014 was instituted for preparation of a preliminary decree for partition. He submits that the petitioners were the defendants in the said suit and the partition suit is between the brothers and sisters and one of the brother has instituted the said partition suit. He further submits that the plaintiff, who is the respondent No. 1 has made certain arrangement with one M/s J.B. Real Estate Developers and Contractors in the shape of development agreement and in view of that the petitioners had filed a petition under Order-I, Rule-10(2) of the CPC, which was rejected. He then submits that by the impugned order dtd. 11/3/2024, the learned court in absence of any reason has rejected the same, in view of that the said order may kindly be set aside, as M/s J.B. Real Estate Developers and Contractors is a necessary party to decide the partition suit. He relied in the case of Baluram Versus P. Chellathangam and Ors., reported in 2015(1) JLJR (SC) 178.