ORDER :

The captioned writ petition is filed by the defendant No.3 questioning the order passed by the learned Judge on IA No.8 filed under Order 14, Rule 5 R/W Section 151 of CPC.

2. The facts leading to the case are as under:

The respondent Nos.1 to 3 have filed a suit for partition and separate possession in OS No.4/2013. Respondent Nos.1 to 3/plaintiffs have specifically contended contend in the plaint that suit schedule properties are joint family ancestral properties. It is also stated at para2 of the plaint that 4th respondent/defendant No.1 who is the father of the plaintiffs is ‘Kartha’ of the joint family and there is no partition in the joint family ancestral properties. At Para No.3 of the plaint, respondent Nos.1 to 3/plaintiffs have alleged that respondent No.5/second defendant returned to his native in the month of September 2002 and when they were looking for a bride to perform the marriage of second defendant, they enquired about the properties of the Family of the groom and this compelled respondents/plaintiffs to verify the records and to their utter shock, they found that one property is standing in the name of 4th respondent/defendant No.1 and other two lands were standing in the name of the present petitioner/defendant No.3 and defendant No.4. Basing this as a cause of action, the present suit is filed.

3. The present petitioner/defendant No.3 on receipt of summons has tendered his appearance and contested the proceedings by filing written statement. The petitioner has specifically contended that the suit scheduled properties are self acquired properties of respondent No.4/defendant No.1 and he has sold the suit schedule properties for valuable consideration and hence, the properties which are subject matter of alienation are not available for partition. Based on the rival contentions, Trial Judge has formulated the issues. But, the present petitioner has filed application under Order 14 Rule 5 r/w Section 151 of CPC requesting the Court to formulate additional issues. The said application was not at all objected by the respondents/plaintiffs. However, the learned Judge has proceeded to reject the application on the ground that the present suit is one for partition and separate possession and the present petitioner being stranger does not have locusstandito contest the partition suit and contend that the suit schedule properties are self acquired properties of defendant No.1 i.e. his vendor. The learned Judge was of the view that issue No.1 would cover the controversy between the parties and there by framing an additional issue as to whether defendant No.3 proves that agricultural lands were self acquired properties of defendant No.1 is not necessary issue for effective adjudication of controversy between the parties. On these set of reasons, learned Judge has rejected the application.

4. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner would vehemently argue and contended before this Court that the proposed issue needs to be framed so as to protect the right of present petitioner who is the purchaser of suit schedule properties for full sale consideration.

5. To buttress arguments, he would take this Court to memo filed by first defendant who has adopted written statement filed by second defendant. He would further take this Court to para18 of the written statement of defendant No.3 wherein the present petitioner has specifically contended that the family of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 2 are owners of the land to the extent of 5 acres. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 are not claiming partition in the said ancestral property without including ancestral property, the plaintiffs at the instigation of first defendant has filed the present suit only in respect of the properties which are alienated.

6. Relying on these material aspects, learned counsel submit that there is prima facie case to indicate that present suit is collusive. The present petitioner is entitled to defend the case by claiming that suit schedule proper