IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE th ON THE 8 OF NOVEMBER, 2024 MISC. PETITION No. 4041 of 2024 SMT. SONAM KHAN AND OTHERS Versus SATTAR KHAN AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Faiz Ahmed Qureshi - Advocate for the petitioner [P-1]. Shri M S Jadon - Government Advocate for respondent/State.

Ms. Dimpal Vyas - Advocate for the respondent [R-1].

ORDER This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 08.07.2024 passed Civil Suit No. RCS A 05/2023 by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division Pohri whereby an application preferred by the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading themselves as necessary parties to the proceedings has been dismissed.

2. In brief, the facts of the case are that respondents No.7 to 14 instituted a civil suit against respondents No.1 to 6 for declaration of title in respect of suit land bearing survey Nos. 309 and 307 admeasuring 0.47 Hectare situated at Village Jhiri Pargana Pohri. The respondents No. 1 to 5 filed written statements whereby all the pleading in the plaint were denied. In the said civil suit, the petitioners preferred an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading them as a necessary parties wherein it was submitted that Late Shri Kabul Khan had four legal heirs namely Hamid Khan, Kallo @ Haseena, Guddi and Raseed Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA Khan. During pendency of the suit, Raseed Khan died and due to his death, his legal heirs namely Smt. Shehnaz Khan (wife of Late Raseed Khan) and Azha Khan (son of Late Raseed Khan) were made parties as plaintiffs No. 4 and 5. However, the petitioners herein are also the legal heirs (daughters of Late Raseed Khan) were not made parties to the suit. Respondents No.1 to 5 filed reply to the said application wherein they denied the avements made in the application. Learned trial Court after hearing both the parties rejected the said application vide impugned order dated 08.07.2024. Hence, challenging the said order, the present petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the application preferred by the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, it has been specifically mentioned that they are legal heirs of the deceased Raseed Khan. The wife and son of the deceased Raseed Khan have already been impleaded as plaintiffs No.4 and 5. The petitioners being married daughters of the deceased Raseed Khan had no knowledge about pendency of the suit. When the said fact came into their knowledge, the said application had been moved by them. Though the suit is at the stage of defendants evidence, no effective decree could not be passed without impleading the petitioners as parties to the suit because the petitioners are legal heirs of deceased Raseed Khan and thus, are necessary parties. With the aforesaid submissions, prayer for setting aside the impugned order has been made.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed by the submissions made by the petitioner.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. From perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that learned trial Court rejected the said application by holding that the petitioners in the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, has not specifically stated that as to how they are Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA necessary party to the suit? However, in the application, it has been specifically stated by the petitioners that they being daughters of the deceased Raseed Khan were necessary parties to the suit. The impugned order cannot be given the stamp of approval, as no effective decree could be passed without the petitioners being impleaded as party in the present suit. For effective adjudication of the lis no prejudice would be caused to any of the parties if the petitioners are also impleaded as party in the present suit. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial c