AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sushil Harkauli, J.—I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.
The petitioners are plaintiffs in a Title (Partition) Suit.
The private respondents No. 13 to 18 moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. for being impleaded as defendants in the suit on the ground that the said intervenors were a progenies born out of the second marriage contracted by the plaintiffs'' grand father in the year 1933.
Certain documentary evidence was filed in support of the intervention application which the plaintiffs claim to be have successfully controverted.
The trial court has allowed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C.
This writ petition challenges the order allowing the Impleadment.
The argument advanced in this writ petition is based on the misconceived assumption that the documentary evidence produced in support of the intervention application is the only evidence which will be produced ultimately in the suit on the issue whether the grand father of the petitioners contracted a second marriage as alleged in the year 1933 and on the issue whether the intervenors are the progenies born out of that second marriage.
The time of the second marriage and the period thereafter, when the grand-father of the plaintiffs could have been seen marrying or living as husband and wife with his alleged second wife, is not so far back in time as to make it impossible for witnesses of the incident being alive and available to give oral evidence.
At the stage of intervention application oral evidence is not given.
Having regard to the over all circumstances, I am of the opinion that the intervenors should not be shut out from hearing and participating in the suit but should be given a chance to prove their allegations in the suit after framing of proper issues.
Accordingly, I am not inclined to interfere in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed.