Heard learned counsel for the revisionists.

2. The instant revision has been preferred challenging the order dated 22.12.2010 passed by Subordinate Judge-I, Dhanbad, in Title (Partition) Suit No.126 of 2010 (Ashish Kumar Agrawall vs. Kishore Kumar Agrawalla & Ors.).

3. After institution of suit, an application on behalf of the defendant was preferred under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint on the ground that no cause of action arose to the plaintiff for filing the instant suit. The main contention that since the partition suit has been instituted by the son during the lifetime of his father and, therefore, the suit is not maintainable and the plaint is liable to be rejected. The suit property cannot be partitioned in view of the Hindu Succession Act as well and, therefore, institution of suit is malicious and without substance and is liable to be rejected outright.

4. The next contention of the learned counsel is that since the property is not available for partition specially in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Wealth tax, Kanpur vs. Chander Sen, reported in AIR 1986 SC 1753, paragraph-16A. The s