CLARENCE JOSEPH BHENGRA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder the order dated 10.05.2016 passed by the learned Sub-Judge-I, Ranchi in Partition Suit No.85 of 2015 is under challenge, by which, a petition filed under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure dated 01.07.2015, has been allowed by impleading the respondent No.3 as party-defendant to the aforesaid partition suit.

(2.) It is the ground urged by the petitioner before the trial court that under the customary law the respondent No.3 has got no right to take share over the said property who happens to be the sister of the respondent No.3 as also the petitioner and the respondent No.2 under Order I Rule 10 of the C.P.C. for her impleadment as partydefendant to the aforesaid partition suit but the trial court without appreciating the factual aspect of the matter and without looking to the customary law, has impleaded her as party, therefore, the aforesaid order is not sustainable in the eye of law.

(3.) Mr. Ankit Kumar, A.C. to G.P.-IV, learned counsel appearing on behalf of State-respondent has submitted that the order impugned not suffers from infirmity because merely on account of the impleadment, no prejudice will be caused to the petitioner and even if the customary law is in favour of the petitioner as also the respondent No.2 the same could be considered by the trial court while giving declaration with respect to the claim of the petitioner about reversioners.