Order on Board

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the impugned order dated 03.12.2024 passed by learned First Additional Judge to the court of First Civil Judge Senior Division, Raigarh in Civil Suit No. 83-A/2023, whereby the application filed by the intervenor under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC has been allowed and he was directed to be impleaded as a party defendant in this suit.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners were the defendants in the suit before the learned Trial Court. The respondents No. 1 to 4 are prosecuting a suit for declaration of title and partition of the suit property as mentioned in schedule A, B, C, and D annexed with the plaint situated at village Boirdadar, Badpali, Gadumariya, Tehsil and District Raigarh. The parties are having joint Hindu family property which has not been partitioned and therefore they are prosecuting the suit for partition amongst the family members. He would further submit that in the suit for declaration and partition between the family members, the present respondent No. 5 filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC on 10.10.2023 claiming that he entered into an agreement to purchase the part of the suit property from the defendants and he being the necessary party should be impleaded as the defendant in the suit. The said application is allowed by the learned Trial Court vide its order dated 03.12.2024. He would further submit that the intervenor is claiming on the basis of an agreement which does not create any right upon him to interfere in the partition proceeding between the family members. He is neither a necessary nor a proper party in the suit, and therefore he cannot be impleaded as a party defendant. Yet, the learned Trial Court has allowed his application which is liable to be set aside.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 to 3 supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and would submit that it is the plaintiff’s case who is prosecuting a suit for declaration and partition against the defendants and the intervenor has no right to interfere in the partition proceeding which is pending before the learned Trial Court between the family members. The intervenor has a separate and independent right to prosecute the defendants for specific performance of the contract with respect to his agreement, if any. But in the suit for declaration of title and partition between the members of the joint family, the intervenor has no locus to claim to be impleaded as a party defendant. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Trial Court is erroneous.

4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5 opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that the respondent No. 5 is having an agreement to purchase the land from the defendants and thus he is having interest over the property and therefore, he has filed an application for impleading himself as the defendant in the suit. Even if he has been made as a party defendant in the suit, the rights of the parties have not been prejudiced as the intervenor is claiming his right under the agreement which has been executed between him and the defendants. Whatever property is obtained by the defendant would be subject to the execution of the sale deed under the said agreement. Therefore, he has filed his application for impleading himself as the defendant in the suit which has been rightly considered by the learned Trial Court and allowed the same. The writ petition does not have any merit and is liable to be dismissed.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Trial Court.

6. In the case of Gurmit Singh Bhatia v. Kiran Kant Robinson & others, 2020 (13) SCC 773, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:

“5.2 An identical question came to be considered before this Cou