IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.227 of 2009 GOBIND PRASAD, SON OF LATE JAMUNA PRASAD, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA ANDI GOLA, P.S. – TOWN, DIST. – MUZAFFARPUR. -------- DEFENDANT NO. 1/PETITIONER. Versus 1. GOPAL PRASAD, S/O LATE JAMUNA PRASAD, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT BB-98, SALT LAKE CITY, SECTOR-1, KOLKATA, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF MOHALLA ANDI GOLA, P.S. –TOWN, DIST.. – MUZAFFARPUR. -----PLAINTIFF/OPPOSITE 1ST PARTY. 2. SHANKAR PRASHAD, S/O JAMUNA PRASAD 2. SRIKALAWATI DEVI, W/O LATE JAMUNA PRASAD BOTH RESIDENT OF ANDI GOLA, P.S. – TOWN, DIST – MUZAFFARPUR ------ DEFENDANT PARTY NO. 2 & 3/OPPOSITE PARTY 2ND SET. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. N.K. Agarwal, Senior Advocate For the opposite parties : Mr. Vijay Anand, Adv. --------- 3. 17/2/2009 Heard Mr. N.K. Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vijay Anand, learned counsel for the opposite parties. The defendant No. 1-petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 20.11.2008 passed by the Sub Judge-5th, Muzaffarpur, in Partition Suit No. 253 of 2001 whereby a petition filed under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. by the plaintiff to add some of the legal heirs of late Jamuna Prasad as the party- defendants to the suit has been allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prayer for addition of the party is time barred. Further submission is that it was the mistake on the part of the plaintiff not to implead the proposed defendants as party to the suit and - 2 - by the proposed addition of parties he wants to rectify his mistake. It is also contended that it is apparent from the Annexure-4 which is a rejoinder of the defendant petitioner to the petition of plaintiff filed under Order I Rule 10 of the C.P.C. that the mother and sister have surrendered their share and interest in the estate of Jamuna Prasad in favour of the plaintiff and defendants No. 1 and 2, therefore, they are not the necessary party. The trial court, having considered the rival submissions, has allowed the aforesaid prayer of plaintiff in the interest of justice holding that the proposed defendant are proper parties for determination of the lis. Learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that the plaintiff has not sought any relief against the defendants which have now been added. In view of this, he could not point out as to how this prayer of plaintiff would be time barred in a suit for partition. I do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order dated 20.11.2008. As a result, this Civil Revision is dismissed. S.Ali (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)