AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ravi Malimath, J.—The petitioners filed a suit for partition and separate possession. During the pendency of the suit the proposed plaintiffs 6 to 9 filed an application seeking to implead themselves and permit them to come on record. The same was allowed. Therefore the present petition seeking to set aside the said order. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the impugned order is bad in law and liable to be set aside. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned order passed by the trial Court.
The suit is one for partition. The plea of the proposed plaintiffs is that the plaintiff No. 6 is the wife and 7 to 9 are the children of defendant No. 1. Therefore they have a right, title and interest over the suit property.
The trial Court on considering the same rightly allowed the application. I do not find any error in the impugned order. No right of the proposed plaintiffs have been determined. The only reasoning recorded by the trial Court is that the plaintiffs have an arguable case to be made out. Under these circumstances when the material on record would show that the proposed plaintiffs have a semblance of a right, they cannot be ousted from the proceedings. Even otherwise it is only on determination of the suit that any right or otherwise can be determined. Under these circumstances the petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.