ORAL ORDER

Heard learned advocate Mr. Anvesh Vyas for the applicants.

2. The present Civil Revision Application is filed under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to set aside order dated 3.4.2021 below Exh. 8 in Regular Civil Suit No. 38 of 2019 by learned Additional Senior Civil Judge Visnagar. By the said order, learned judge allowed the application of the applicant Patel Savitaben - daughter of deceased Patel Gandalal Bhikhabhai and wife of Govindlal, which was filed under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC, 1908, for getting impleaded as party in the suit.

3. The suit was filed by the applicants herein seeking partition of the property and further to get the amount of profit arising out of the agricultural income for the agricultural land. The case of the applicants was that the land was of the joint ownership. The suit property was originally belonged to deceased Patel Gandalal Bhikhabhai and was the ancestral property.

3.1 The applicant Savitaben by filling the application to be joined as party contended that her name was required to be added in the array of the parties since she had also equal right in her father’s ancestral property. The applicant further submitted that there was no harm to the plaintiffs if she is permitted to become party. It appears that in support of the case for impleadment, the applicant produced certain entry of inheritance at mark 10/2, answer of Genealogy vide mark 10/3 and other documents to show that she being a daughter, was a direct lineal of deceased Patel Gandalal Bhikhabhai and had equal share with others. It was stated that plaintiffs have assured that her name would be entered into revenue records, but instead doing that and even without joining her as party, the suit came to be instituted.

4. It is to such application that the present applicants – the original plaintiffs raised objection by filling reply to the application, wherein the claim of the applicant was denied that she had equal share. It was contended that the deceased had prepared pedhinama in presence of Talati-cum-Mantri and the entry for inheritance was made in the revenue record on 8.4.1992 and 6.6.1992 which remained unchallenged.

5. When the nature of the suit is seen as recorded above, it was a partition suit. The applicants plaintiffs sought partition of the suit property described in para 1 and 3 of the plaint to contend that all the five brothers had 1/5th share in the property; that they have been cultivating the same and raising profits out of the agricultural income. The applicant Savitaben wanted herself to be impleaded as a party in the suit proceedings being a daughter of the deceased Patel Gandalal Bhikhabhai on the premise that she was having equal share in the partition suit. She was otherwise entitled to be joined as party in the suit for partition, it was stated.

5.1 Learned judge while allowing the application recorded that genealogy report and pedhigri was produced by the applicant alongwith her application; that the suit was for partition of ancestral property of her father that the applicant being daughter could claim right over the property of the deceased father and therefore her request to implead her was required to be granted.

6. The provisions of Order I Rule 10 of the CPC which permits addition of parties, vests in the court discretion to allow party to join or delete at any stage of the proceedings. It is the discretion to be exercised having regard to the attendant facts, nature of controversy and the kind of proceeding in which the impleadment is prayed for. In the facts of the case, when the suit was for partition and the applicant being a daughter sought to be impleaded as party defendant claiming equal share in the property, exercise of discretion by learned judge is proper and legal to grant the applicant by exercising powers under Order I Rule 10 of CPC.

7. No interference is called for in the impugned order. The present Revision is summarily dismissed.

(N.V.ANJARIA, J)

C.M. JOSH