The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioners had no locus to seek impleadment in the suit and were neither necessary nor proper parties to the said suit.

JUDGMENT

Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. (Oral)

1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 12.04.2023 passed by the ADJ-04, North District, Rohini Court, Delhi (`Trial Court') in Partition Suit No. CS DJ 227/2018 titled as "Sanjay Kohli & Ors. V. Harish Kumar Kohli" whereby, the Trial Court dismissed the application filed by the Petitioners herein under Order I Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure (`CPC') seeking impleadment as plaintiffs in the civil suit.

1.1. The civil suit has been filed seeking partition of property bearing No. A-280, New Sabji Mandi, Azadpur, Delhi (`subject property').

1.2. The Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 are plaintiffs in the civil suit. The Respondent No. 1 is the sole defendant in the civil suit.

1.3. The Petitioners are not party to the civil suit though the Petitioners have been aware about the pendency of the said civil suit since inception and in fact, the Petitioner No. 1 was examined as DW-2 in support of the defence and counter claim set up by the sole defendant (i.e., Respondent No. 1).

2. It is the admitted case of the parties that the subject property was allotted to late Shri Madan Lal Kohli, who died intestate on 02.12.1974 leaving behind five (5) class-I legal heirs i.e., (i) Inder Kumar Kohli (son) (ii) Harish Kumar Kohli (son) (iii) Jaipal Kohli (son) (iv) Usha Sahni (daughter) (v) Pooja Sahni (daughter).

2.1. It is the stand of the plaintiffs in the civil suit that Jaipal Kohli, Usha Sahni and Pooja Sahni have relinquished their rights in the subject property in favour of the plaintiffs herein.

2.2. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the rights in the subject property now remain only between the plaintiffs and defendant i.e., the Respondent No. 1 herein. In the aforesaid facts, the plaintiffs filed the suit for partition and damages with respect to the subject property.

2.3. In the civil suit filed by the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs rely upon the registered relinquishment deed dated 23.03.2000 executed by Petitioner No. 1 herein with respect to his share in the subject property in their favour.

3. In the written statement filed by Respondent No. 1, the Respondent No. 1 has relied upon a registered relinquishment deed dated 18.11.2016 executed by Petitioner No. 1 for the same share in his favour.

3.1. Petitioner No. 1 herein supported the stand of the Respondent No. 1 and entered the witness box as DW-2 and was cross-examined by the plaintiffs.

4. The defendant evidence stood concluded on 09.05.2019 and thereafter, the matter was listed for final arguments. This Court has been informed that in fact, the final arguments have already commenced in the matter as on 12.07.2023.

5. The Petitioners herein filed at this belated stage, when the civil suit was for final arguments, filing an application seeking impleadment as a plaintiff and a declaration that the statement recorded by the Petitioner No. 1 as DW-1 in evidence has been obtained by misrepresentation and fraud.

6. The Trial Court vide impugned order dated 12.04.2023 has dismissed the said application by a detailed order along with costs of Rs. 10,000/-. The present petition has been listed for the first time on 17.08.2023 after four (4) months of the said dismissal.

7. The learned counsel for the Petitioner states that in the civil suit, a specific issue has been framed with respect to non-joinder of necessary parties and with respect to the validity of the relinquishment deed(s) relied upon by the plaintiffs and defendant respectively.

7.1. He states that in view of the said issues, the Petitioners herein are necessary parties for deciding the said issues.

7.2. He states in the alternative, the relinquishment deed(s) have been executed by the Petitioner No. 1 herein alone. He states however since the subject property is an ancestral property, his children Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 as well have an independent right in the said property and they are not bound by the said relinquishment