1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4193/2007 (Ram Vilas Vs. District Judge, Pratapgarh & others) Date of Order :: 8th April 2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.L.K.Purohit for the petitioner Mr.S.L.Jain for the respondent No.4 ... Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is unable to find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order so as to call for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. By the impugned order dated 04.05.2007, the applicant Smt.Radhi Bai, who admittedly carried the status of married wife of the deceased Hajari Lal, has been ordered to be impleaded as party in the suit for partition and perpetual injunction as pending between the parties admittedly in relation to the property of the said Shri Hajari Lal. The plaintiff Chen Ram has alleged in the plaint that Hajari Lal has expired issueless and his wife has left him 20 years back. It has also been alleged in the plaint that Hajari Lal was being looked after by the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 and it has been alleged in relation to defendant No.2, the present petitioner, that he was trying to grab the property belonging to Hajari Lal. 2 The applicant Smt.Radhi Bai alleged that she was being deprived of her rights in the property in question; and Ram Niwas, the petitioner, has not permitted her to reside in the house in question and has alleged having got executed an adoption deed in his favour. The applicant has alleged her right in the property in question and thus being entitled to be impleaded a party to the present suit. The application was opposed by the petitioner, inter alia, with the submissions that Smt.Radhi Bai was married to one Magni Ram and was residing at Mukanpura. The learned Trial Court has referred to the material available on record including the alleged adoption deed containing recitals about Radhi Bai having gone in Nata and has found the applicant Radhi Bai to be having an interest in the suit property and her presence being conducive to the just decision. The order aforesaid is assailed in this writ petition fundamentally on the submissions that the facts that the applicant Radhi Bai left the company of Hajari Lal and entered into matrimony with Magni Ram and is residing at different village are established from the documentary evidence available on record and even in the adoption deed, Hajari Lal had pointed out that his wife left his company 15 years back. It is contended that in view of such documentary evidence, the applicant cannot be said to be having any 3 interest in the property in question. In relation to the impugned order, the submissions remain bereft of substance. The pieces of evidence as referred by learned counsel for the petitioner could only be appreciated while considering the matter on merits and it cannot be concluded outright that the applicant Smt.Radhi Bai has no right or interest in the subject matter of litigation particularly when her been the legally wedded wife of Hajari Lal does not appear to be a matter of dispute. Whether she left her husband Hajari Lal and contracted any other marriage and what is the effect of the evidence referred by the petitioner, are the matters to be considered only after evidence of the parties. So far impleadment is concerned, the learned Trial Court has allowed the application on relevant considerations and there does not appear any jurisdictional error so as to call for interference in the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. The writ petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed summarily. No costs. (DINESH MAHESHWARI),J. MK