Sunil Dutta Mishra, J. – Notice was issued to respondent Nos. 1 to 4, who are plaintiffs in the suit. Despite valid service of notice and sufficient opportunity given, no one appeared on behalf of the said respondents/plaintiffs.

2. Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner.

3. This Civil Miscellaneous application has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 19.06.2018 passed by learned Sub Judge-V, Aurangabad in Partition Suit No. 26/2018 / (4/2018) whereby and whereunder petition filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) and Section 151 of C.P.C. seeking impleadment as defendant was rejected.

4. Plaintiffs / Respondent 1st set filed a partition suit bearing Partition Suit No. 26/2018 (4 / 2018) seeking relief to grant a preliminary decree with respect to 1/3rd share of plots of suit land and carved out separate takhta of the same to plaintiffs by appointing of survey knowing Pleader Commissioner and to declare right, title and interest of plaintiffs over the land given in Schedule-II of the plaint.

5. The case of the plaintiffs is that Abdul Nasib was Khatiyani Raiyat and ancestors of the plaintiffs and defendants. The genealogy attached with plaint to show the relationship between the parties. The defendants in written statement contended that plaintiffs and defendants are descendants of common ancestors, namely, Abdul Nasib who, in lieu of Dain Mehar, had executed a registered deed of Bai Mukasa on 05.01.1933 in favour of his wife Sahidan with respect to land of plot No. 1053 under Khata No. 132 Area 7 Decimal and Bibi Sahidan, the widow of Abdul Nasib died leaving behind two sons and a daughter and after her death the sons and daughter of her came in possession of the property gifted to Bibi Sahidan and the house standing over the suit plot towards north portion is the house of Mani Bibi (the petitioner herein) and she is in possession.

6. The petitioner filed a petition on 05.06.2018 under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) and Section 151 C.P.C. seeking impleadment as intervenor-defendant in the said partition suit claiming that Schedule-II property belongs to the petitioner as the same was allotted to her mother Rasulan Bibi (daughter of Abdul Nasib) in amicable partition with her brothers. The petitioner further claimed that she has constructed residential house on the suit land (Schedule II land) and is residing therein.

7. In the rejoinder, the plaintiffs had stated that Abdul Nasib had no daughter and the petitioner is stranger and is not legal heir of late Abdul Nasib.

8. The petitioner had filed before the learned Court below a certificate issued by concerned Ward Commissioner certifying that petitioner is maternal grand-daughter of Sahidan Bibi and daughter of Rasulan Bibi and she is residing in the Nawadih ward, Aurangabad after construction of a house. The petitioner also filed payment receipt of property tax to Aurangabad Nagar Parishad for the house situated over the suit land. However, the learned Court below rejected the said petition dated 05.06.2018 seeking impleadment as party defendant vide order dated 19.06.2018 against which the petitioner has filed this Civil Miscellaneous application.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the house standing over the suit land is the house of petitioner and she is in possession. The plaintiffs have claimed the land which belongs to the petitioner, who is maternal grand daughter of the common ancestor Abdul Nasib. He has further submitted that the defendants in their written statement have also admitted the claim of the petitioner and the same has also been noted by the Court in its order dated 10.07.2018 that Abdul Nasib in lieu of Dain Mehar had executed a registered deed of Bai Mukasa on 05.01.1933 in favour of his wife Sahidan with respect to land of plot No. 1053 under Khata No. 132 area 7 decimal. Bibi Sahidan, the widow of Abdul Nasib died leaving behind two sons and daughter and after her death her sons and d