IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adding necessary and proper parties to ensure the complete determination of the matter in dispute and to prevent multiplicity of suits.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Ganpati Trivedi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J.S. Arora, learned senior counsel for the respondents.

2. This Writ Application has been filed against the order dated 19.11.2015 passed by the learned Sub Judge-V, Sitamarhi passed in Eviction Suit No. 02 of 2011 allowing the application of the intervenor/respondent No. 4 filed under Order 1 Rule 10 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for adding him as a party.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/petitioner has filed Eviction Suit No. 02 of 2011 for eviction of defendant-respondent Nos. 1 to 3 from the suit premises on the ground of default and personal necessity and for arrears of rent and other formal reliefs. The case of the plaintiff-petitioner is that his father died in the year 1955 leaving behind three sons namely, plaintiff/petitioner, defendant/respondent No.1 and Hari Prasad Sarawgi. Through a registered sale deed of the partition dated 19.12.1988 vide deed No. 10238 the heirs partitioned all the properties. After partition, the parties applied for mutation and were mutated and are paying rent. In partition, the suit premises fell in the share of the plaintiff which is mutated in his favour and is paying rent to the State of Bihar on grant of rent receipt and the petitioner constructed new buildings on the same. The defendant No. 1 did not get any residential house and took the suit premises on rent since the suit premises was situated in prime location of the Town. The premises was let out with effect from 01.01.1991 on monthly rent of Rs. 36,000/-and gradually the rent has been increased to Rs. 50,000/-. In March, 2009, on ground of personal necessity for personal use for expansion of his business, the plaintiff requested the defendants to vacate the suit premises but they failed to comply the same and became defaulter. Hence, the aforesaid Eviction Suit has been filed.

4. Defendant No. 1 filed his Written Statement. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 also filed their separate written statement who are son and daughter-in-law of defendant No.1. P.W. 1 to 5 were examined. At this stage, Sanchit Sarawgi the grandson of defendant No. 1 filed an application dated 01.05.2014 under Order 1 Rule 10 and Section 151 C.P.C. for his addition as party on the ground that he has some share in the suit property; the registered deed of partition dated 19.12.1988 was fraudulent as it shows unequal division of properties amongst the decendants of Late Ram Prasad Sarawgi and his interest was not considered and accordingly, he is a necessary party. The plaintiff-petitioner filed rejoinder that the grandson of defendant No. 1 has intervened at the instance of defendant No. 1 only to delay in disposal of the suit. On the date of registered partition deed dated 19.12.1988, petitioner was not born and he was born in year 1993 only and is resident of Surat in Gujarat and the interest of family was represented through Karta defendant No. 1. The learned Court below allowed the intervention petition.

5. Mr. Ganpati Trivedi, learned senior counsel has submitted that the learned trial Court failed to consider that defendant No. 1 is grandfather of intervenor who has filed written statement and was contesting the suit. Defendant No. 1 in his written statement admitted that he was Karta and manager of his family and the said fact has also been admitted by defendant Nos. 2 and 3 and in their written statement they specifically admitted in paragraph 11 that there had been a family arrangement on 19.12.1988 in which defendant No. 1 was first party. Hari Prasad Sarawgi was 2nd party and the plaintiff was 3rd party. He further submits that defendant No. 1 has not assailed the said registered deed of partition nor he sought cancellation on the ground that it being forged or fraudulent. He has next submitted that defendant No. 1 who is grandfather of Intervenor acknowledging the said partition dated 19.12.1988 executed several sale deeds to the properti