O.S.
937/2013
04.09.2025
Order on [Link].V filed by the plaintiffs Under Order 1 Rule
10(2) read with Section 151 of CPC.
The present IA is filed by the plaintiffs to implead the
proposed defendants No.10 to 17 in the suit.
2. Along with the above IA, the plaintiff No.2 has sworn
to an affidavit and submitted that the plaintiffs have filed
the present suit for partition in respect of the suit property
stating that the plaintiffs and defendants no.1 & 2 are the
co-owners of the suit property, as the suit property was
acquired by Sri late Ismail Sabi, the father and grand-father
of the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 & 2. But the defendant
No.9 sold portion of the suit property in favour of proposed
defendants under different sale deeds dated 14.07.2014,
05.05.2006, 04.01.2005 without the consent and
knowledge of the plaintiffs. Therefore the proposed
defendants are necessary parties in the present suit. Hence
sought for allow the above IA.
3. After filing of the present IA, notice issued to the
proposed defendants. But the proposed defendants did not
chosen to appear before the court and the defendants on
record have not filed objections to above IA.
4. Order I Rule 10 of CPC empowers the court to add
parties to the suit if their presence is necessary for effectual
and complete adjudication of the matter in dispute. It is to
be noted that the present suit is filed by the plaintiffs for
partition in respect of the suit property claiming that the
plaintiffs and defendants No.1 & 2 are the co-owners in
respect of the suit property, as the suit property was
acquired by father and grand-father of the plaintiffs and
defendants No.1 & 2. It is contended by the plaintiffs in the
present application that during the pendency of the present
suit, portion of the suit property has been alienated by
defendant No.9 in favour of proposed defendants under
various sale deeds, as mentioned above. It is necessary to
note that present suit is filed by the plaintiffs for partition.
The parties are Mohammedans. As such in the present
suit, the question to be determined is whether the plaintiffs
and defendants No.1 & 2 are co-owners in respect of the
suit property and if that is so, what is the share the
plaintiffs and defendants No.1 & 2 are entitled for. When
that being the question involved in the present suit,
presence of alienees are not necessary and the alienees
could be impleaded even at the time of final decree
proceedings. Under such circumstances, the proposed
defendants who are said to be the alienees are not
necessary parties in the present suit. In view of the same,
court pass the following:
ORDER
[Link].V filed by the plaintiffs under Order I Rule
10(2) read with Section 151 of CPC is rejected on cost
of Rs.500/-.
Earlier the matter was posted for further chief of PW.1.
For further chief of PW.1 by:15.10.2025.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and
then pronounced by me in the open court this the 4th day of September, 2025)
(Abdul Saleem)
[Link] Civil Judge,
Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru.