HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY C.R.P.No.2556 of 2014 Date : 22-8-2014 Between:
Rahamath Bee ..
Petitioner And Mohammed Jaleel Saheb and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri Ashok Kumar Agarwal Counsel for respondents : --
] The Court made the following :
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order dated 22-4-2014 in I.A.No.142 of 2014 in I.A.No.327 of 2010 in O.S.No.63 of 2004 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District.
The petitioner has obtained a preliminary decree for partition. Respondent Nos.2 to 13 filed appeals against the said Judgment and decree and the same were dismissed by the learned VI Additional Distruct Judge, Vikarabad (FTC), Ranga Reddy District on 2-9-2011. S.A.Nos.1711 of 2011 and 53 of 2012 filed against the said Judgment and decree by respondent Nos.2 to 13 are pending in this Court. The petitioner filed I.A.No.327/2010 for passing a final decree. Respondent No.1 filed I.A.No.142/2014 in the said application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for permitting him to come on record based on a purported Will allegedly executed by the father of respondent Nos.2 to 13. This application was allowed by the Court below by the above mentioned order, questioning which the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.
At the hearing, Sri Ashok Kumar Agarwal, learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that the claim of respondent No.1 that a Will was executed in his favour by the father of respondent Nos.2 to 13, is wholly false and that respondent No.1 has no locus to come on record.
In my opinion, the proof of Will needs to be adjudicated in the final decree proceedings. It is therefore premature for the Court to render a finding on the genuineness or otherwise of the Will. If respondent No.1 is not permitted to come on record in the final decree proceedings, he may eventually file a separate suit. Therefore, the impleadment of respondent No.1 is more advantageous to the petitioner so that the latter will not be vexed with another substantive litigation. More over, by allowing respondent No.1 to come on record, multiplicity of proceedings can be avoided and the Court can comprehensively adjudicate the claim of respondent No.1 in the present proceedings itself.
For the above mentioned reasons, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower Court. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed.
As a sequel to the dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition, CRPMP No.3555 of 2014 filed for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.
Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 22-8-2014 AM