SABITRI DEVI Vs. SHYAM SUNDER PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Respondents.

(2.) This petitioner earlier was unsuccessful in her impleadment in Partition Suit No. 106/2003 pending before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division)-III, Giridih, as per order dated 26.06.2009 passed on her petition dated 21.09.2005. Perusal of order dated 26.06.2009 (Annexure-B to I.A. No. 1618/2017 filed by the Respondents 1,2 and 8) reveals that the learned Court allowed impleadment of Manohar Pandey and Chandrika Devi, legal heirs of Khubi Pandey in the array of defendants. Plea of this petitioner was not accepted. She was allowed opportunity to furnish genealogy given in the Land Acquisition Office or any other cogent document corroborating the fact that Bhusan Devi and Sabitri Devi are heirs of the deceased Sumitra Devi.

(3.) Petitioner thereafter preferred second petition on 02.09.2013 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of Civil Procedure Code seeking her impleadment as a necessary party claiming herself to be the granddaughter of Khubi Pandey born out of Sumitra Devi. By the impugned order dated 29.03.2014, learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-III, Giridih rejected the same as being not maintainable as no such succession certificate or any documentary evidence were produced in support of her claim. Moreover, in the petition dated 21.09.2005, the name of husband of the petitioner was shown as late Durga Pandey while in the instant petition, name of her husband was shown as Jagarnath Pandey. Petitioner admittedly had not been able to produce the certified copy of genealogical table obtained from the office of the Land Acquisition Officer, as per leave granted in the earlier order dated 26.06.2009. Petitioner being aggrieved, approached this Court.