NARAYAN MAHTO Vs. KHEMNI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, who are plaintiffs in the Partition Suit No. 53 of 1991, are aggrieved of order dated 17.08.2017 by which their application for impleadment of purchasers of a part of the suit properties has been rejected.

(2.) Partition Suit No. 53 of 1991 has been instituted by the petitioners for a preliminary decree for partition to the extent of half share for them in the suit schedule properties and a declaration that the sale deeds dated 02.09.1939, 16.03.1943 and 04.02.1944 are illegal, null and void. The defendants contested the suit on various grounds; one of the grounds taken by the defendants was non-joinder of necessary parties. During pendency of the suit, an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC was filed on 01.08.2017 for impleadment of 10 persons, who allegedly are purchasers of a part of the suit schedule properties. This application has been dismissed on the ground that the plaintiffs inspite of due notice to them did not implead necessary parties in the suit and, therefore, now they cannot be permitted to fill-up lacuna in the case.

(3.) No doubt, purchaser of the suit schedule property may be impleaded in the suit in which the dispute pertains to the suit land, however, powers under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC can be exercised by the Courts only to further the interest of the justice. Powers under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC is founded on justice, equity and good conscience. Way-back in the year 1993, the defendants had raised an objection on non-joinder of the purchasers. The plaintiffs, however, did not take any step in the matter for long 24 years. The plaintiffs, who have taken a calculated chance by not impleading the purchasers, who, in fact, should have been impleaded as defendants at the time of institution of the suit, inspite of objection raised by the defendants, now cannot plead that serious prejudice would be caused to them if purchasers are not impleaded as defendants in the suit. Law comes in rescue for a vigilant litigant and not a negligent litigant. In "Bibi Zubaida Khatoon vs. Nabi Hassan Saheb & Anr. reported in, 2004 1 SCC 191" , it has been held that an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC can be dismissed on the ground of delay.