Manoj Kumar v. Uma Prasad And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.24 of 2017 ====================================================== Manoj Kumar .... .... Appellant/s

Versus

Uma Prasad & Ors .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Kumar Uday Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO ORAL ORDER 18-01-2017 1.

Heard the learned counsel, Mr. Kumar Uday Singh, for the petitioner.

2.

Perused the impugned order dated 4.7.2016 passed by learned Sub Judge-14, Motihari in Final Decree (Partition) Case No.145 of 1973 whereby the learned Court below rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for being added as party.

3.

It appears that partition suit was filed and it was decreed preliminarily holding that the plaintiff is entitled to 8 annas share in the suit property. The Court below also held that since the suit had been decreed preliminarily and the plaintiff is entitled to only 8 annas share, the petitioner will be entitled to a share in the share of vendor who are parties in the suit and, therefore, at this stage there presence is not necessary.

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.24 of 2017 (2) dt.18-01-2017 2/2 4.

Admittedly, it is a partition suit and plaintiff's share has been decreed up to half share only. The half share is to be allotted in favour of the defendant. The petitioner's vendor is the defendant and, therefore, at this stage, if the petitioner will be added as party, it will only complicate the matter. Thus, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction.

5.

Accordingly, this Civil Misc. Application is dismissed. (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J) Sanjeev/- U T