The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of deciding the impleadment application in a partition proceeding before finalizing the partition, and the impropriety of issuing partition Sanad despite the setting aside of the previous order.

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.

1. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged order/Sanad Taqsim dated 22.12.2009 passed by respondent No. 2 and order dated 05.07.2011 passed by respondent No. 3 and has prayed that respondent No. 3 be directed to decide the partition application afresh in accordance with law. As per the pleaded facts, respondent Nos. 4 to 9 filed application for partition on 13.06.2006 against respondent No. 10, real brother of respondent No. 5, who filed his reply on 04.10.2006. The petitioner purchased land measuring 12 Kanals 01 Maria from respondent No. 10 on 08.06.2007 and 12 Kanals 01 Maria on 22.06.2007. After the purchase, the petitioner filed application dated 27.07.2007 for impleading himself as a co-respondent. On 27.07.2007, respondent No. 3 passed the following order:--

File presented. Counsel for both the parties came present in the Court. Sh. Baldev Singh filed reply to the objections of Naksha " Ara". Copy of the same was given to the applicant. Sh. Parminder Singh has presented an application for impleading him party. Copy of the same has been given to the counsel for the applicant. File be put up on 03.08.2007 for reply to the application for impleading party and for arguments on Naksha "Ara". Baldev Singh respondent got his statement recorded regarding application submitted by Sh. Parminder Singh that he has no objection, in impleading Sh. Parminder Singh as party. File be put up on 03.08.2007.

2. On 25.10.2007, respondent No. 5 filed an application for proceeding with the partition application. Respondent No. 10 filed objections dated 18.01.2008 to Naksha Ara to which reply was filed by the applicants in the partition application on 28.01.2008. Ultimately, Naksha Ara was passed vide order dated 28.02.2008 and Naksha Irri on 28.03.2008 behind the back of the petitioner without deciding his application for impleading him as a party. Respondent No. 10 challenged the order dated 28.02.2008 by which Naksha Ara was passed in appeal and the said order was set aside by respondent No. 2 on 02.07.2008 and the case was remanded back to respondent No. 3 to decide the case on merits after visiting the spot. When the file was taken up on 21.07.2008, both the original parties to the partition colluded and the matter was compromised in order to defeat the right of the petitioner/purchaser from respondent No. 10 because they both suffered a statement on 21.07.2008 that they have compromised the matter and have no objection qua Naksha Ara and Naksha Irri and as such, the earlier Nakshas be kept as it is and Sanand Taqsim be issued in accordance with the same. Respondent No. 3, vide his order dated 21.07.2008, passed Naksha Ara and Naksha Irri, ordered for issuance of Sanad Taqsim and dismissed the application of the petitioner by the same order for becoming the party. The petitioner etc. filed appeal against the order dated 21.07.2008 which was accepted by respondent No. 2 vide his order dated 30.01.2009 and the case was remanded back to respondent No. 3 to consider the application of the petitioner. The parties were directed to appear before respondent No. 3 on 17.02.2009. Respondent Nos. 5 to 9 filed appeal against the order dated 30.01.2009 but it was dismissed as withdrawn on 26.04.2011 because the respondents got issued Sanad Taqsim on 22.12.2009 by submitting an application dated 21.10.2009 and affidavit of the same date. When the petitioner etc. came to know about it, they immediately moved an application dated 02.07.2010 before respondent No. 3 but since no action was taken by him, the petitioner moved respondent No. 2 because, in the meantime, respondent No. 5 also moved an application dated 21.10.2010 for issuance of warrants of possession on the basis of the Sanad Taqsim. Respondent No. 2 directed respondent No. 3 to hold an inquiry into the matter and submit his report vide his letter dated 03.09.2010. Respondent No. 3, vide his letter No. 1697/Reader-I dated 27.09.2010, submitted the report mentioning s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document