( 2025:JHHC:19527 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 198 of 2025 Nakul Kumar Singh, aged about 35 years, S/o Late Raj Kishore Singh, R/o Village Sara, PO & PS- Naudiha Bazar, District- Palamau, Jharkhand ………………….Petitioner Versus 1. Arjun Kumar Singh, S/o Late Raj Kishore Singh, R/o Village- Bara, PO & PS- Chhattarpur, District-Palamau, 2. Ram Pyari Devi, W/o Rana Sanjay Singh, R/o Village- Belhath, PO- Belhath, PS-Kandi, District-Garhwa, 3. Santra Devi, W/o Lal Mohan Singh, R/o Village-Dumarhata, PO & PPS- Dangwar, District- Palamau, 4. Hirendra Singh, S/o Late Nageshwar Singh, 5. Sanali Kumari, (Minor) D/o Hirendra Singh, 6. Pammi Kumari, (Minor) D/o Hirendra Singh 7. Riya Kumari, (Minor), D/o Hirendra Singh, 8. Payal Kumari, (Minor), D/o Hirendra Singh, 9. Ritesh Kumar, (Minor), S/o Hirendra Singh, Respondent No.4 is father and legal guardian and represented of Respondent no. 5 to 9 and Respondent no. 4 to 9 are R/o Village-Manjhigawan, PO- Plata, PS- Nabinagar, District-Aurangabad, State- Bihar, 10. Lila Devi, W/o Binay Singh, D/o Late Raj Kishore Singh, R/o village Kamat, PO- Banjyadih-Barahi, PO-Hussainabad, District- Palamau, 11. Sheo Kumar Singh, S/o Janeshwar Singh, R/o Village- Itwa, Noniya Bigha, PO- Itwa, PS- Nabingar, District- Aurgnabad, State- Bihar, 12. Lakhan Yadav, S/o Bachu Yadav, 13. Jatan Yadav, S/o Bachu Yadav, 14. Kailash Yadav, S/o Bachu Yadav, Respondnet No. 12 to 14 are R/o Village- Naso, PO-Gulabjhari, PS- Chhattarpur, District- Palamau, 15. Smt. Patiya Devi, W/o Surendra Yadav, R/o Village- Haneya, PO- Halka, PS- Kutumba, District-Aurngaband, State- Bihar, 16. Rajendra Kumar, S/o Sri. Shivbhajan Ram, 17. Surendra Kumar, S/o Sri. Shivbhajan Ram, 18. Ravindra Kumar, S/o Sri. Shivbhajan Ram, Respondent no. 16 to 18 are R/o Village- Bara, PO & PS- Chhattarpur, District- Palamau, ( 2025:JHHC:19527 ) 2 .…… Opposite Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner : Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Raj Nandan Chatterjee, Advocate Ms. Diksha Rani, Advocate For the O.P. Nos. 2, 4-12 : Mr. J. N. Upadhyay, Advocate Mr. Mayank Kumar, Advocate Ms. Kavita Kumari, Advocate For the O.P. Nos. 1 and 3 : Mr. Ajay Kr. Pathak, Advocate 07/Dated: 17/07/2025 Heard Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. J.N. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the O.P. Nos. 2, 4-12 and Mr. Ajay Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for the O.P. Nos. 1 and 3. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not want to press I.A. No. 7460/2025. 3. Accordingly, I.A. No. 7460 of 2025 is dismissed as not pressed. 4. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 12.12.2024 passed in Partition Suit No. 70/2012 by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-IV, Palamau at Daltonganj whereby the learned court has been pleased to reject two petitions filed by the petitioners under Order 22 Rule 4 and 9 read section 151 of C.P.C and under Order 1 Rule 10 read with section 151 of C.P.C. 5. Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner/plaintiff has instituted Partition Suit No. 70 of 2012 with prayer of partition of suit lands to the entire ½ one-half share in the suit land in favour of the plaintiff and also prayed for allotted separate takhta of suit land after appointment of survey knowing Advocate Commissioner along with delivery of possession upon the suit lands against the defendants. He further submits that it has transpired that during the pendency of the suit defendant no. 9 has left for his heavenly abode and in ( 2025:JHHC:19527 ) 3 view of that a petition under Order 22 Rule 4 and 9 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. was filed for substitution of legal heirs and successions of defendant no. 9 however the learned court has rejected the said petition only on the ground of delay of 90 days. He further submits that another petition under Order 1 Rule 10 read with section 151 of C.P.C. was also filed for adding the person who was subsequent purchaser of the suit land in question which has been further rejected by the learned court on the ground that sale deed has not been annexed with the said petition. He submits that by the impugned order both the petitions have been rejected by the learned court which is not in accordance with law. He further submits that for deciding lis both the petitions were ought to have been allowed however, the learned court has rejected the said petitions. 6. Learned counsel for the O.P. Nos. 1 and 3 and O.P. Nos. 2, 4-12 jointly oppose the prayer and submit that learned court has rightly passed the impugned order and there is no illegality in the impugned order. 7. It is an admitted position that defendant no. 9 has left for his heavenly abode and for substituting the name of his legal heirs and successors a petition under Order 22 Rule 4 and 9 read section 151 of C.P.C has been filed. The Court has looked into the said petition and finds that prayer for condonation of delay and setting aside abatement has also been made in the said petition however, the learned court without giving any reason for not setting aside abatement, has rejected the said petition. 8. It is well known that in one petition the prayer for condonation of delay, setting aside abatement and substitution can be made and that has been done by the petitioner. Further, the defendant no. 9 has died and for deciding the lis, the legal heirs and successors are necessary party in view of that the finding of the learned court is not correct. 9. It has been pointed out that sale deed was already annexed ( 2025:JHHC:19527 ) 4 with the list of documents dated 13.09.2021 and that has not been denied by the learned counsel for the opposite parties herein and finding of the learned court is that sale deed is not annexed in view of that the petition under Order 1 Rule 10 read with section 151 of C.P.C for impleading the person who has purchased the land during pendency of the suit has been filed, which has been rejected. If such a situation is there the person who has purchased the land subsequently is a necessary party and the ground of rejection is beyond the record. As such second petition has also been rejected by the learned court is not in accordance with law. As such impugned order dated 12.12.2024 passed in Partition Suit No. 70/2012 is set aside. Both the petitions filed under Order 22 Rule 4 and 9 read section 151 of C.P.C and under Order 1 Rule 10 read with section 151 of C.P.C are hereby allowed. 10. The learned court will allow the petitioner to make out necessary correction in the plaint with rebuttal right to the opposite parties. 11. This C.M.P. is allowed in above terms and disposed of. Pending I.A, if any, stands dismissed. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Satyarthi/A.F.R.