The property of one Jia Lal Sawhney is the bone of contention in a civil suit wherein relief of partition by metes and bounds of a house, four shops and vacant land is sought. The petitioner is one of the sons of late Jia Lal Sawhney. The suit was filed almost two decades back. Petitioner was not impleaded as party defendant, while his son has been impleaded as party in the array of defendants. The suit which was commenced almost two decades back has covered the huge distance.

Application was filed by the petitioner seeking impleadment as defendant in the suit which has been conceded by the plaintiff while resisted by the defendants. Learned trial Judge dismissed the application vide its Order dated 05.04.2008. It is this order, which is called in question, in this revision petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that property is a co-parcenary property and the rights of the parties are to be determined in the suit for partition. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner has subsisting interest in the suit property and in his absence any lawful decree may not be passed by the court. Learned counsel further submitted that any decree passed in which petitioner is not a party is capable of being challenged by the petitioner and, therefore, it would be appropriate to allow the petitioner to participate in the proceedings, by impleading him as party defendant. Learned counsel, accordingly, prayed for allowing of the application seeking impleadment as party defendant pending on the files of Sub Judge, Jammu.

In the suit a stand was taken that petitioner was separated from his father in December, 1971. The son of the petitioner is defendant no. 2 in the suit. Regarding the status of the property, it is admitted that the same is co-parcenary property. In a suit for partition, the shares of the parties are to be determined. When the suit was instituted and applicant was not impleaded as party, but his son was impleaded as party, he should have promptly filed application for seeking his impleadment. The trial court proceeded with trial of the case for almost two decades and petitioner in these twenty years did not show any interest or inclination to become part of the proceedings. At the time when proceedings in the suit are nearing culmination, petitioner has moved an application seeking impleadment as party defendant. What prevented the petitioner from seeking his impleadment for two decades is not forthcoming. The conduct of the petitioner would, prima facie, show that he was not interested in the suit property or in the proceedings.

Application filed by the petitioner at a belated stage appears to be not bonafide, but malafide one. It appears that the application has been filed to reverse the course of the proceedings. Such a nefarious effort has to be scuttled and nipped in the bud. The trial court is duty bound to protect the rights of the bonafide litigants and cannot encourage malafide and dishonest litigations. It does not stand to reason as to why and for what reason petitioner waited on the fence for almost two decades. If he had interest in the suit property he should have taken steps for seeking impleadment at the time when suit was institituted. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in terms of Order I Rule IX of Civil Procedure Code, petitioner was a necessary party and it was the duty of the trial court to implead him as a party defendant, cannot be accepted in the facts and circumstances of this case and for the reasons recorded herein above. Application filed by the petitioner seeking impleadment is, thus, held to be malafide one and is misconceived.

For the above stated reasons, the impugned order does not call for intereference and the petition is, accordingly, dismissed along with CMA No. 109/2008.

Record of the trial Court be sent back.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document