The main legal point established is the maintainability of a suit for partial partition and the curability of any infirmity in the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.

JUDGMENT

Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The aforesaid petition, is directed, against the disaffirmative orders pronounced by the learned trial Court, upon, an application cast before it, by the defendants, under the provisions of Order 7, Rule 11, CPC, wherethrough, the, defendants espoused for rejection, of the plaint, (a) on the ground qua the plaintiff failing to embody in the suit for partition, certain properties, as, disclosed, in the apt application. The plaintiff had instituted a suit for partition, of, the joint properties, and, had impleaded all apt co-owners thereof, as, defendants. A perusal of the plaint, does, bear out the factum, of the plaintiff''s suit, for partition of the undivided properties, jointly held by her, with, the defendants, not, obviously including, the, properties reflected by the defendants, in their application, as, subsequently cast before the learned trial Court, under, the provisions, of, Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC.

2. Before proceeding to determine, the predominant fact, whether, any suit for partial partition, of, property(ies) held joinlty amongst the plaintiff, and, the defendants, is maintainable, it, is deemed imperative, to allude, to the provisions borne in Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:-

11. Rejection of plaint-The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:-

(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;

(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law::

[(e) Where it is not filed in duplicate;]

[(f) Where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9;]"

(a) significantly when only upon satiation qua the mandate thereof, the apt mandate thereof, rather would beget, attraction, vis-a-vis, the plaintiff''s suit. However, prior thereto, it is also imperative to determine, the, tenacity of the reasons assigned, by the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court, without, meteing any interpretation, vis-a-vis, the aforesaid factum, has rather hence declined, the, espoused relief to the defendants, merely, on the ground, of, the documents hence appended with the apt application, being photo copies, of, the apt revenue record, whereto presumption of truth, is not attachable rather, presumption of truth, being attachable, vis-a-vis, the original(s) thereof. However, the aforesaid reason(s) assigned by the learned trial Court, are, per se, flimsy, as the mere appending, of, the photo copies, of, the relevant revenue records, with the apt application, per se, not, eroding the probative vigour thereof, (i) unless, the plaintiff while meteing reply, to, the aforesaid apt application, had contested the authenticity, of, the photo copies of the apt revenue record. However, when a perusal of the reply filed by the plaintiff, vis-a-vis, the apt application, fails to unfold, qua the plaintiff/non-applicant, hence, contesting the authenticity, of, the photo copies, of, the apt revenue record, appended with the apposite application, (ii) thereupon, it was insagacious, for, the learned trial Court, on the aforesaid anvil, hence decline relief, vis-a-vis, the defendants, upon their apposite application.

3. Be that as it may, it is also enjoined to be determined, whether the plaintiff, was, enjoined to cast, a suit for partition, only with respect, to, some of the properties jointly held by her, with, the defendants or whether the suit for partial partition, of, all the joint suit properties, was or was not hence maintainable. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/respondent, has