The validity of an adoption deed cannot be adjudicated at the stage of an application for impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC; such issues must be decided during the trial, making the claimant a necessary party to the suit.

Order

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner– Shri Rajendra Singh Hada, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 16.01.2023 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No.1, Bundi, in Civil Suit No. 14/2020, titled as 'Rajendra Singh vs. Nandsingh and Others', whereby the learned Court below allowed the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), and directed that respondent No.1 – Smt. Anuja Singh, be impleaded as a party to the suit.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present case are that the petitioner filed a suit for partition and injunction in respect of the property owned by Smt. Basanti Devi w/o Late Shri Radheyshyam Singh Hada. In the said suit, the petitioner averred that Late Shri Radheyshyam Singh Hada and his wife Smt. Basanti Devi were both survived by four sons and one daughter, and that one of their sons, Shri Bhanwar Singh Hada, died issueless.

3. Thereafter the petitioner/plaintiff claimed his ½ share in the suit property on the basis of the Will dated 11.07.2019, and during the pendency of the suit, respondent/applicant No.1–Smt. Anuja Singh, filed an application for impleadment on the basis of an adoption deed, claiming that she had been adopted by Late Shri Bhanwar Singh Hada. The learned court below, vide order dated 16.01.2023, allowed the said application on the ground that the validity of the adoption deed cannot be adjudicated at this stage and shall be decided during the course of trial.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned court below has seriously erred in allowing the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC, on the basis of fraudulent documents. He further submits that the adoption deed allegedly relied upon by the respondents appears to be false and fabricated, therefore, no cognizance should have been taken of the same and respondent/applicant No.1–Smt. Anuja Singh, could not have been impleaded as a party to the suit.

5. Heard and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order dated 16.01.2023.

6. From a bare perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the present suit was filed for partition of the property left behind by Late Smt. Basanti Devi w/o Shri Radheyshyam Singh Hada, who was survived by four sons, and one daughter. In the main suit, the case of the petitioner/plaintiff is that Shri Bhanwar Singh Hada died issueless, whereas the case of respondent/applicant No.1-Smt. Anuja Singh is that she was adopted by Late Shri Bhanwar Singh Hada through an adoption deed and, therefore, is entitled to claim the share of her adoptive father.

7. The learned court below rightly observed that the issue regarding the legality and validity of the adoption deed cannot be adjudicated at this stage and shall be considered during the course of the trial. Accordingly, it was rightly held that respondent/applicant No.1–Smt. Anuja Singh, is a necessary party to the present suit. Her application was, therefore, allowed, and she has been impleaded as respondent/defendant No.4 along with other defendants in the suit.

8. From a bare perusal of the record, it is also evident that after passing of the impugned order dated 16.01.2023, the amended plaint and the amended written statement were filed, and only after which, the present writ petition has been filed with a delay of almost two years and ten months and no satisfactory explanation has been furnished by the petit