Devraj Singh Bisht v. Surendra Singh Bisht another

plaintiffs/respondent nos. 2, 3, and 4 filed a suit for partition of the property situated in Simalgair Bazaar, Pithoragarh, being Plot Nos. 46 and 47. The petitioner filed his written statement along with a detailed reply to the plaint. Thereafter, respondent no. 1 filed an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC, numbered as Paper No. 17Ka, to which respondent nos. 2, 3, and 4 submitted their objections. The learned trial court, after hearing both parties, rejected the said application moved by respondent no. 1 under Order I Rule 10 CPC vide its order dated 26.02.2015. Aggrieved by the said order, 1 respondent no. 1 preferred Civil Revision No. 01 of 2015, Devraj Singh Bisht vs. Surendra Singh Bisht & another, before the learned District Judge, Pithoragarh, and the learned District Judge allowed revision on

06.02.2017. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the revisional court passed the impugned order merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures and with material irregularity, as the revisional court recorded a finding that respondent no.1 was a party to the family agreement, but ignored the fact that respondent no. 1 was a beneficiary and a party only in respect of the property mentioned in ‘Schedule C’. The said property has already been disposed of by him, and he has no concern with the property mentioned in ‘Schedule B’ of the family agreement, in respect of which he had sworn an affidavit of relinquishment, as well as with the adjacent plot mentioned in the same agreement of the year 1994. In that agreement, the other two participants had also relinquished their claims over the Schedule B property.

4. He further submits that in paragraph 7 of the impugned order dated 06.02.2017, it has been noted that the counsel for the petitioner did not appear before the learned revisional court either on his own volition or out of negligence, due to which no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner, who was not present in person. The petitioner was not informed about the relevant date of hearing or about the pronouncement of judgment, and it was only upon his return to Pithoragarh that he came to know of the developments and immediately applied for a certified copy of the order. 2

5. Per contra, learned counsel respondents submits that the impugned order dated

06.02.2017 passed by the learned District Judge, Pithoragarh, does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is contended that the revisional court has passed a reasoned and well-considered order after examining the entire material available on record. It is also submitted that the writ petition raises no substantial question of law or jurisdictional error and is nothing but an attempt to delay the proceedings of the original suit. The revisional court has exercised its lawful jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions of Section 115 CPC, and the interference by this Court in its writ jurisdiction is not warranted.

6. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 submits that respondent no. 1 was rightly held to be a necessary and proper party to the proceedings, as his rights and interests in the property in question are directly involved in the adjudication of the partition suit. The learned trial court erred in rejecting his application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, and the revisional court has rightly corrected that error in the exercise of its jurisdiction.

7. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this Court finds no substance in the writ petition. The revisional court, while allowing the revision preferred by respondent no. 1, has assigned cogent and convincing reasons for holding that respondent no. 1 is a necessary and proper party to the proceedings. The revisional court has not adjudicated upon the merits of the title or ownership of the parties but has merely 3 directed impleadment to ensure complete and effective adjudication of the suit for partition.

8. This Court is of the considered view that the revisional court has exercised its jurisdiction within the ambit of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and has not committed any jurisdictional error or material irregularity warranting interference in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner’s plea regarding lack of opportunity of hearing is also untenable, as the order of the revisional court itself indicates that sufficient opportunity was available, and absence of counsel on the date of hearing cannot be made a ground to vitiate a reasoned judicial order.

9. The contention relating family settlement and relinquishment of rights, as urged by the petitioner, involves disputed questions of fact, which are to be determined by the trial court on the basis of evidence, and not in proceedings of this nature.

10. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no illegality, infirmity, or perversity in the impugned order dated 06.02.2017 passed by the learned District Judge, Pithoragarh, in Civil Revision No. 01 of 2015. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed as being devoid of merit.

11. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 31.10.2025 AK 4