ORDER

The petitioners have filed the present petition being aggrieved by an order dated 19.12.2019 whereby the learned trial Court has allowed an application filed under Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC for the addition of the remaining legal heirs of Atmaram as co-defendants in the pending suit.

Plaintiff Narayan filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction on 22.08.2014. During the pendency of the suit, he also claimed the decree of partition and possession by way of amendment. The present petitioners being the defendants filed a written statement on 26.02.2015. The civil suit proceeded further and reached the stage of final argument on 09.12.2019, the civil suit was finally heard and the Court reserved for pronouncement of judgment on 20.12.2019.

The plaintiff filed an application under Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC on 13.12.2019 that wife and daughters of late Atmaram could not be impleaded as defendants in the suit, they are also necessary parties for the purpose of the decree of partition, declaration and possession.

Hence, they be allowed to be joined as co-defendants in the suit.

The application was opposed by the present petitioners by submitting that once the proceedings of the case have been concluded by way of hearing of final arguments of both sides and are now reserved for pronouncement of judgment, hence no application is liable to be entertained. It is further submitted that the application under Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC is not maintainable as Atmaram did not die during the pendency of the suit.

Vide order dated 19.12.2019 the learned trial Court has allowed the application on the grounds that the proposed defendants are the necessary parties for adjudication of the suit and a cost of Rs.4,000/-

has been imposed on the plaintiff. Hence, the present petition before this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned trial Court has wrongly entertained the application after closing the case of the final verdict. The ld. trial court has the discretion to pronounce judgment on the same day of final arguments or any other day and from the date of hearing, hence the case fixed for pronouncement of judgement cannot be treated as a pending suit for entertaining any interlocutory application. Learned counsel further submits that the plaintiff being a family member was aware of the death of late Atmaram and the names of his wife and daughters hence they should have been impleaded as defendants in the suit along with others. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Pujya Sindhi Panchayat Vs. C.L.Mishra and others reported in AIR 2002 Raj 274 which is based on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Arjun Singh Vs. Mohindra Kumar reported in AIR 1964 SC 993 . Hence, prays for quashment of the impugned order and direction to the trial Court to pronounce the judgment.

Heard and conclusion.

It is not the case of the petitioner that the legal heirs of late Atmaram are not necessary parties in the suit. It is to be seen that hat the plaintiff is an illiterate and rustic villager. The plaintiff has frequently changed the advocates, and it appears they had no knowledge that some of the family members/co-sharers are not made defendants in the suit. In the suit filed for partition, shares in the ancestral properties between all the co-sharers or family members are liable to be ascertained. Especially as per amendment under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, the daughters are also entitled to share in ancestral property, therefore, at this stage, the mistake came to the knowledge of the Court and the application has been rightly allowed with cost.

The wife and daughters also have a share in the suit property but that shall be decided by the trial Court. The petitioners cannot challenge the impleadment of their names in the parties suit because