Hon’ble Rajes Kumar, J.—The plaintiff-respondents filed the suit being Suit No. 197 of 1992, which has been renumbered as Original Suit No. 410 of 2003, Naresh Kumar v. Ranjeet Kumar and others, for partition of the properties belonging to the Joint Hindu Family. In the suit, Sri Madan Lal was defendant No. 14, who is the father of the petitioner. In the aforesaid suit, the petitioner moved the application on 6th March, 2010, under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for his impleadment in the suit on the ground that he is the co-parcener of the Joint Hindu Family and is entitled for the share in the property in dispute. The said application has been rejected by the Trial Court vide order dated 19.4.2010 and the revision against the said order has also been dismissed by the impugned order dated 9.12.2010.

2. The Trial Court has held that the petitioner’s father is defendant No. 14 and on behalf of the father, the petitioner was doing Pairavi of the case and appearing in the Court regularly. It is further observed that the petitioner is deriving his share through father, who is already party in the suit. The application has been moved at a belated stage. In the order, the Court has referred some of the agreements entered into between the parties.

3. The revisional authority has held that in the suit, the petitioner appeared on behalf of his father, who was defendant No. 14, on 10.5.2005, 26.11.2008, 23.12.2008, 7.1.2009, 24.2.2009, 7.3.2009, 1.4.2009, 10.4.2009, 23.4.2009, 7.7.2009, 15.7.2009 and 19.8.2009. The father of the petitioner has already filed his reply. The evidences have been closed and the case is listed for final hearing, therefore, the application moved by the petitioner, which is highly belated, is not acceptable.

4. Heard Sri S.K. Verma, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Siddhart Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rahul Sahai, appearing on behalf of the respondents.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is co-parcener and is entitled for the share in the Joint Hindu Family property and, therefore, the petitioner is the necessary party. In case, if the petitioner will not be impleaded as a party, interest of the petitioner may be jeopardised. In support of the contention, he relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. v. Regency Convention Centre & Hotel Pvt. Ltd. and others, JT 2010 (6) 537 and N.V. Narendranath v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1970 SC 14.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon some of the paragraph of Mulla’s Hindu Law 7th Edition wherein the concept of the term coparcenery has been dealt with. Some of the paragraphs on which the reliance is placed are referred hereinbelow:

“213. Hindu Coparcenary :

A Hindu coparcenary is a much narrower body than the joint family. It includes only those persons who acquire by birth an interest in the joint or coparcenary property. These are the sons, grandsons and great-grandsons of the holder of the joint property for the time being, in other words, the three generations next to the holder in unbroken male descent (see Section 218). The above propositions must be read in the light of what has been stated in the note at the top of this chapter.

To understand the formation of a coparcenary, it is important to note the distinction between ancestral property and separate property. Property inherited by a Hindu from his father, father’s father or fathers’ father, is ancestral property. Property inherited by him from other relations is his separate property. The essential feature of ancestral property is that if the person inheriting it has sons, grandsons or great-grandsons, they become joint owner’s coparceners with him. They become entitled to it due to their birth. These propositions also must be read in the light of what has been stated in the note at the top of this chapter.”

“214. Formation of Coparcenary :

(1) The concep