PRASANTA ROY CHOUDHARY Vs. SMT.UJJWALA MANDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed by learned Sub -Judge -VII, Deoghar dated 3rd March, 2009 in Title Suit No. 25 of 1988 whereby an application, preferred by respondent no. 1 for impleading her as a party defendant in the title suit, was allowed by the trial Court and, therefore, the original plaintiff i.e. the petitioner has preferred this writ petition mainly on the ground that the said application for impleading respondent no. 1 as a party defendant was allowed at the fag end of the suit.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for contesting respondent no. 1, who has submitted that no error has been committed by the trial Court by allowing the application, preferred by respondent no. 1 under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. for impleading her as a party defendant mainly for the reasons that the present respondent no. 1 had already filed a partition suit bearing Title (Partition) Suit No. 34 of 1987, which is pending before the same trial Court and the present petitioner has filed Title Suit No. 25 of 1988, which is subsequent in point of time. In the suit, filed by respondent no. 1, the present petitioner was a defendant. Thus, though the petitioner was fully aware of the earlier Partition Suit No. 34 of 1987, filed by respondent no. 1, this fact has not been brought to notice by the petitioner, before the trial Court in his subsequently filed suit and, therefore, an application was preferred by respondent no. 1 for joining her as a party defendant in the subsequent suit, filed by the petitioner, which is numbered as Title Suit No. 25 of 1988. Respondent No. 1 has purchased the suit property involving Title Suit No. 25 of 1988 and she is interested in the outcome of the suit, filed by her and, therefore, rightly she is joined as party defendant by the order of the trial Court and, therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.

(3.) AS a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons and looking to the impugned order passed by the trial Court, no error has been committed by the trial Court in appreciating the aforesaid reasons and rightly the application, preferred by respondent no. 1 under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C, has been allowed. As the present petitioner was the defendant in title partition suit, filed by respondent no. 1 and though the petitioner was fully aware that previously filed suit, which is still already pending, for which, a subsequent suit is filed, I see no reason even to award a cost for impleading respondent no. 1 as a party defendant. It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that at the fag end of the trial, such an application for impleading respondent no. 1 as a party defendant was allowed by the trial Court. This contention is not accepted by this Court mainly for the reasons that the petitioner cannot be allowed to get the benefit of his own folly or wrong. The petitioner cannot be allowed to encash his own mistake. Thus, the petitioner was fully aware of the earlier pendency of Title (Partition) Suit No. 34 of 1987, filed by respondent no. 1, the petitioner has not deliberately joined respondent no. 1 in Title Suit No. 25 of 1988 and, therefore, there is no substance in this petition and, hence, the same is, hereby, dismissed.