Heard the parties.

2. Petitioners are the defendant no. 1 to 3 before the learned lower court. They are aggrieved by an order dated 30.03.2010 passed by Sub-Judge-XII, Patna in Title (Partition) Suit no. 118 of 2013.

3. Although, there happens to appearance of all the respondents but during the course of hearing, only respondent no. 3 is being represented.

4. Respondent no. 1 and 2 filed the aforesaid Title (Partition) Suit no. 118 of 2013 asking for following reliefs :-

1. Upon adjudication of the facts and circumstances stated above, the share of the Plaintiff no. 1 in the house and landed property in suit fully described in Schedule no. 1 to the plaint be decided.

2. After granting the relief no. 1 to the plaintiff no. 1 or deciding the share of the plaintiff no. 1 in the suit properties, Takhtabandi may be made in the suit properties according to the decree in favour of the plaintiff no. 1.

3. The plaintiffs may be put in possession of the allotted share of land and house to the plaintiff no. 1 through the process of the Court.

3A. It may be declared that the alleged sale deed dated 19.01.2003 is a forged, fraudulent, false fabricated, fogus, illegal, void, inoperative, motivated, mischievous, without consideration money, sham and showy document and is not binding upon the plaintiffs as well as upon their share in the suit property. The purchaser had not paid the consideration money to the vendors.

5. And for that furnished a genealogical table wherefrom, it is evident that there was one Danwari Dusadh who has two sons namely Sarjoo Dusadh and Kalau Dusadh. Mundar Dusadhin happens to be wife of Sarjoo Dusadh while Chanvali Dusadhin happens to be wife Kalau Dusadh. Sarjoo Dusadh has daughters namely Sushila Devi, Sabitri Devi and a son namely Rabindra Kr. Paswan whose wife happens to be Sharda Devi, plaintiff Sunita Devi is their daughter while Santosh Kumar happens to be the defendant. It is also evident that another daughter Sabitri Devi has a son namely Prem Shanker.

6. It is apparent that at an initial stage only Rabindra Kr. Paswan, Santosh Kr. And Reena Devi were the party as defendants. They appeared on notice and filed their written statement. Subsequently thereof, issues were settled and then the evidence of the respondent parties, as is evident from para 7 of the petition, commenced. The evidence of plaintiff was closed on 09.05.2006 while the evidence of defendant no. 1 to 3 was closed on 09.11.2006. As is evident from para 8 thereof, Prem Shankar Paswan as well as Munni Devi filed petition under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure and same was allowed vide order dated 21.12.2006 and accordingly, they both filed their independent written statement on 08.01.2007 and 12.02.2007, respectively. Then thereafter, the evidences of newly added defendants were closed on 05.12.2007 as well on 10.12.2007. Furthermore, it has also been pleaded that argument begin.

7. Subsequently thereof, the case has a twist. As per para 11, it is apparent that defendant no. 4 Prem Shankar Paswan advanced his plea in terms of Order 8 Rule 6A C.P.C., by way of counter claim whereupon rejoinder was invited and then, thereafter, vide order dated 12.03.2008, the same was rejected. Thereafter, on 23.12.2009, a petition was filed on behalf of aforesaid Prem Shanker Paswan to amend the issue whereupon defendant no. 1 to 3/petitioners filed their objections and, after hearing both sides, by the order impugned, the learned lower court rejected the other proposed issues having furnished at the end of Prem Shanker Paswan/defendant no. 4, however, picked up issue no. 1 and on the basis thereof, re-casted the issue which has caused annoyance to the petitioners and thereafter, challenged the order impugned by way of filing instant petition.

8. Manifold arguments have been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners in order to challenge the order impugned. The first and foremost happens to be that learned lower court would not have allo