MD.MAQUSOOD ALAM Vs. SEIKH KARU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the plaintiffs -petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 25.6.2004 passed by the learned 4th Additional District Judge, Godda in Title Appeal No. 13 of 2003 whereby he has allowed the petition filed by the intervenor for impleading him as party -defendant.

(2.) THE facts of the case lie in a narrow compass: Plaintiffs filed suit for partition being Title (Partition) Suit No. 32/92 for preparation of preliminary decree of partition to the extent of 12 annas share in the suit property. Plaintiffs ' case is that Sk. Dayali Mandal and Sk. Marsalli Mandal, S/o late Kasim Ali Mandal of village Garhi held and possessed the suit property, which were recorded in the names of the aforesaid two brothers acquiring joint cultivating possession having equal share therein. Sk. Marsalli Mandal died leaving his widow, Bibi Jhako and a son Seikh Salamat as his heirs who inherited his interest in the aforesaid property. Thereafter, Sk. Salamat died in 1986 leaving behind his widow Bibi Maidan and two sons Md. Ayub Ali and Md. Maqusood and also three daughters as his heirs who said to have inherited the interest of their father.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners assailed the impugned order as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Learned Counsel submitted that at the appellate stage the intervenor - respondent should not have been made party. According to the learned Counsel after preliminary decree passed in a partition suit, third party cannot be impleaded plaintiff or defendant in the suit.