AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ram Mohan Reddy, J.—In a suit for partition and separate possession instituted by the 1st Respondent, IA-11 under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC was tiled by the 3rd Respondent, for permission to come on record as party Defendant on the premise of having purchased a portion of the suit schedule property from the members of the coparcener. That application was opposed by filing statement of objections interalia contending that the alleged sale was in violation of the interim order of temporary injunction. The II Civil Judge & JMFC, Mysore by order dt. 14.1.2011 allowed the application. Hence this writ petition.
The 1st Respondent instituted O.S. 120/1993 arraigning the Petitioners as Defendants 1 and 2 and Respondent No. 2 as Defendant No. 3, since deceased, by Legal representatives for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. The 3rd Respondent filed IA-11 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC asserting" to be a proper and necessary party having purchased portion of the suit schedule property from the members of the coparcenary. Having regard to the law laid down by the apex court in Dhanalakshmi v. P. Mohan AIR 2007 SC 10622 and a decision of this Court in Dr. Narendranath Shetty and Smt. Pushpa N. Shetty, both the petitioners are rep. by their GPA Holder, U.K. Hegde Vs. Sri P.S. Rama Rao Pisey and Others, holding that in a suit for partition, the purchasers of the suit schedule property pendente Lite are necessary and proper parties in the suit pending before die trial court, the trial court was justified in allowing IA-31 by the order impugned. The Petitioners herein cannot be said to be aggrieved by such an order since the Plaintiff/1st Respondent who is a dominus litus has not questioned the order allowing IA-11.
In that view of the matter, the petition is without merit and is, accordingly rejected.