ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 12-02-2024 Heard learned counsels for the respective parties.

Re:- I.A. No. 03 of 2023:-

02. The instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner to bring on record the order dated 06.09.2017 passed by the learned Sub. Judge-V, Saran at Chapra in Title Suit No. 460 of 2013, which has been filed to review the order dated 20.03.2017. Further, the prayer has been made in the interlocutory application to set aside the order dated 06.09.2017 and to allow the review petition dated 22.07.2017 filed by the petitioner.

03. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to mistake and lack of knowledge of legal technicalities, the order on review petition was not brought to his knowledge earlier while filing the civil misc. petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that for this reason the review order was not challenged and the same was not filed on record. The learned counsel prays for taking the order dated 06.09.2017 on record.

04. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has been vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents, submitting that the interlocutory application has been filed after much delay since the original petition was filed in the year 2017 and on 04.12.2023 the present interlocutory application has been filed when it was pointed out on behalf of the respondents that the petition of the petitioner was not maintainable.

05. Having regard to the rival submissions of the parties and in order to address the substantial issue, I.A. No. 03 of 2023 is allowed and the order dated 06.09.2017 passed by the learned Sub. Judge-V, Saran at Chapra in Title Suit No. 460 of

2013 is taken on record.

Re:-Civil Miscellaneous No.1933 Of 2017:

06. The present petition has been filed on behalf petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 20.03.2017 passed by the learned Sub. Judge-V, Saran at Chpara in Title Suit No. 460 of 2013 and to allow the intervention application dated 12.09.2016 filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’). Further, by way of interlocutory application, the petitioner has also added further relief(s) for setting aside the review order dated 06.09.2017 passed by the learned Sub. Judge-V, Saran at Chapra subsequently, in Title Suit No. 460 of 2013 and also to allow the review petition dated 22.07.2017 filed by the petitioner. 07. The facts which emerge from the records are that plaintiffs/respondents 1st set have filed Title Suit No. 460 of 2013 against the defendants/respondent-2nd set before the learned trial court seeking relief of partition claiming half share in Schedule- 1, 2 and 3 of the property. Schedule-1 properties are the ancestral khatiyani property which stood recorded in the name of one Tapeshwar Pandey in R.S. Khatiyan. Tapeshwar Pandey was the common ancestor of Ram Prasad Pandey, Ramji Pandey and Lal Babu Pandey. Schedule-2 of the land is joint family property recorded in the name of Lal Babu Pandey and Schedule-3 property is the jointly family house constructed in 1996-97. First of all, Ramji Pandey died leaving behind his two sons, Govinda Pandey and Madan Mohan Pandey and his sons came in joint possession over Schedule-1 property along with Lal Babu Pandey and Ram Prasad Pandey. Ram Prasad Pandey died leaving behind his son, namely, Rameshwar Pandey. Lal Babu Pandey died unmarried in 1987 and he was joint with the descendants of Ramji Prasad and Ram Prasad Pandey and his interest devolved upon the remaining two branches. Govinda Pandey has four sons out of which, two sons, namely, Kunj Bihari and Jai Prakash have been trace-less since childhood and they would be presumed dead. Rameshwar Pandey died leaving behind his widow, Kishora Devi @ Kishori Devi and son, Lallan Pandey, who filed the suit before the learned court below. The respondent first set (respondent no.2) and respondent-2nd set (