IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL rd ON THE 3 OF APRIL, 2023 MISC. PETITION No. 890 of 2020 BETWEEN:-

1. SURESH KUMAR PALIWAL S/O LATE RAMESH CHAND PALIWAL, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION: FARMER R/O VILLAGE BHOKHEDI KHURD, POST PIPARIYA, TEHSIL SOHAGPUR, DISTRICT HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. PURSHOTTAM PALIWAL S/O LATE RAMESH CHAND PALIWAL, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, VILLAGE BHOKHEDI KHURD POST PIPARIYA TEH. SOHAGPUR, DISTRICT HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONERS (BY SHRI ASHISH SHROTI - ADVOCATE)

AND

1. MUKESH KUMAR S/O LATE PREM NARAYAN PALIWAL, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE BHOKHEDI KHURD, POST PIPARIYA, TEHSIL SOHAGPUR, DISTRICT HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. SMT. PUSHPA BAI W/O MAHESH KUMAR PALIWAL, ADULT, DAUGTER OF LATE PREM NARAYAN PALIWAL, R/O VILLAGE MUKTAPUR TEH. KHIRKIYA, DISTRICT HARDA (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. COLLECTOR DISTT-HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. JAI PRAKASH MAHESHWARI S/O LATE RAMCHANDRA MAHESHWARI, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O GAUTAM WARD, SOHAGPUR, TAHSIL Signature Not Verified SAN SOHAGPUR, DISTRICT HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)

5. SMT. TARABAI W/O LEELADHAR PALIWAL, DAUGHTER OF LATE DHANRAJ PALIWAL, OCCUPATION--, R/O VILLAGE RASULPURA, POST BAKHED,TAHSIL AND DISTT RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (SHRI JITENDRA SHRIVASTAVA - PANEL LAWYER FOR RESPONDENT NO.4/STATE SHRI PARESH PAREEK - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.6)

This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

This miscellaneous petition is filed by the plaintiffs being aggrieved of order dated 05/12/2019 (Annexure P/6) passed in Civil Suit No.19-A/2016 by learned Civil Judge Class-I, Sohagpur, District Hoshangabad allowing an application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. moved by the respondent no.6 Smt. Tarabai, wife of Leeladhar Paliwal, daughter of Late Dhanraj Paliwal seeking impleadment in the suit filed by the plaintiffs, who are claiming certain question of un-devided property to be theirs on the strength of will.

2. Shri Ashish Shroti submits that petitioners/plaintiffs has specifically taken a plea that they are not seeking any relief against defendant no.3, now deleted namely, Dhanaj, son of Late Narmada Prasad Paliwal i.e. father of the respondent no.6 Smt. Tarabai, yet application under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C. is allowed. This will delay the suit and in fact the application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. filed by Smt. Tarabai is at behest of respondent no.5, who has enterered into an agreement for sale with defendants no.1 and 2 namely Mukesh Kumar and Smt. Pushpa Bai.

3. Shri Paresh Pareek in its turns submits that admittedly property is joint.

Signature Not Verified SAN Every coparcener is a owner of complete set of property. Though, petitioners are not seeking any specific relief against the respondent no.3 but in an undivided coparcenary property, every coparcener has share and therefore, has interest in defending the property. Unless and until partition takes place and shares of each of the coparceners are delineated, each coparcener will continue to have interest in the whole of the property.

4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, when impugned order passed by the learned Civil Judge Class-I is taken into consideration, then it is evident that impugned order has been passed after due appreciation of facts and law on record. Since, it cannot be said that first party namely Smt. Tarabai has no interest in the suit property, allowing application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. cannot be faulted with.

5. Petition fails and is dismisssed.

(VIVEK AGARWAL)

JUDGE m/-

Signature Not Verified SAN