IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P .(C) No.373 of 2010
1.Uday Shankar Jha
2.Deo Shankar Jha... ... Petitioners/Defendants
Versus
Dani Shankar Jha & Others ... ... Respondents
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUSHIL HARKAULI
------
For the Petitioner: M/s Prashant Pallav
For the Respondents: None
-----
02/16.4.2010
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.
(Sushil Harkauli, J.)
s.m.