JUDGMENT Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. - This writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India wherein the order dated 05.05.2018 passed in Partition Suit No.129 of 2003 by which petition filed by the petitioner/intervener dated 07.09.2017 under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been rejected. 2. This Court after going across the pleading made in the writ petition on the factual aspects and more particularly pleading of the Partition Suit, has found that the Partition Suit has been filed by one Gita Devi, D/o. Late Sukhram Lohar, arraying therein (1) Rungtu Lohar (2) Sheo Narayan Lohar (3) Bhotha Lohar and (Raj Kishore Lohar, Shiv Narayan Lohar, and Madho Lohar, and Dilip Oraon. The said partition suit have been filed in the year 2003 wherein the preliminary decree has been passed on 18.11.2011 which was signed on 03.12.2011 against which the appeal has been filed being Title Appeal No.78 of 2011 which has been dismissed against which second appeal, has been decided. The petitioner claims to purchase the property from five Co-sharers who are defendants to the suit namely (1) Rungtu Lohar, who has been substituted (2) Sheo Narayan Lohar (3) Botha Lohar, (4) Raj Kishore Lohar and one (5) Dilip Lohar, by virtue of the sale deed dated 03.03.2001 vide Deed No.2554 as such the petitioner/proposed intervener has filed a petition under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. for her impleadment as party to the proceeding since she has got interest over the property after its purchase by virtue of the registered Sale Deed No.2554 dated 03.03.2001 and if any decree would be passed in her absence, her interest would seriously be jeopardized but the said application has been rejected by the trial court on the ground that the same may cause hindrance in proper adjudication of the present suit. 3. Mr. 3. Mr. Rajendra Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that merely on the ground of causing hindrance in proper adjudication, the petition filed under Order I Rule 10 of the C.P.C. since has been rejected the same cannot be said to be a valid reason while the court ought to have taken into consideration the fact that she has purchased the said property from five Cosharers namely (1) Rungtu Lohar, (2) Sheo Narayan Lohar, (3) Botha Lohar, (4) Raj Kishore Lohar and one (5) Dilip Lohar prior to institution of the suit i.e., on 03.03.2001 and as such she is a necessary party to be joined in the suit. 4. Mr. S.N. Sharma, who has put his appearance for the respondent No.1/plaintiff and has defended the order passed by the trial court dated 07.07.2017 by submitting that there is no infirmity in the said order so far as her interest is concerned, since after the preliminary decree having been passed the Knowing Pleader Commissioner has been done appointed and Takhtabandi has also been done basis upon the report she has been proposed to be allocated the open space over the suit property and therefore, the petitioner/intervener has got no claim against the respondent No.1/plaintiff rather the petitioner is any grievance which is against the other defendants namely (1) Rungtu Lohar, (2) Sheo Narayan Lohar, (3) Botha Lohar, (4) Raj Kishore Lohar and one (5) Dilip Lohar, for which, she has the remedy of claiming her title if any dispute would be there in between petitioner and her vendors and therefore the writ petition may be disposed of so that the matter may proceed to reach its finality. 5. Mr. P.K. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel has argued out his case on the strength of vakalatnama filed by one Madho Lohar by submitting that the writ petition may not be entertained for the reason of non-impleadment of proper party since Dilip Lohar, son of Sukhram Lohar, who happens to be the grandfather (uncle of Dilip Lohar), and therefore, in his absence of the said the instant writ petition may not be entertained. 6. Mr. 6. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has seriously disputed the aforesaid contention by submitting that the said very issue has been agitated by the said Dilip Lohar, which has been adjudicated upon by the trial court being Issue No.8 wherein the issue has been decided holding therein that Dilip Oraon is not the son of Sukhram Lohar and against that finding, the said Dilip Lohar has filed an appeal bearing First Appeal No.43 of 2014 which was dismissed against which second appeal has been filed which is lying pending for its consideration before this Court. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after considering the arguments advanced on their behalf, the fact which is not in dispute in this case is that a suit for partition has been filed for partition of the suit property in between the Gita Devi who is the plaintiff to the suit and (1) Rungtu Lohar, (2) Sheo Narayan Lohar, (3) Botha Lohar, (4) Raj Kishore Lohar and one (5) Dilip Lohar, in the suit, preliminary decree has been passed on 18.11.2011 which was signed on 03.12.2011, against which appeal has been filed being Title Appeal No.78 of 2011 which has been dismissed and now it the suit is for preparation of final decree, for which, the Knowing Pleader Commissioner has been appointed who has submitted its report and the process of Takthabandi has also been completed as has been informed by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 that the Knowing Pleader Commissioner''s report and basis upon which the Takhtabandi has been done, the open space has been reported to be allocated and partitioned in favour of the respondent No.1/plaintiff, this aspect of the matter has not been disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the other sides. 8. It is in the backdrop of this factual aspect it is to be seen by this Court, as to whether the petitioner has got any claim against the plaintiff who is the respondent No.1 herein. 9. 8. It is in the backdrop of this factual aspect it is to be seen by this Court, as to whether the petitioner has got any claim against the plaintiff who is the respondent No.1 herein. 9. Admittedly the petitioner has purchased the property from the other defendants namely (1) Rungtu Lohar, (2) Sheo Narayan Lohar, (3) Botha Lohar, (4) Raj Kishore Lohar and one (5) Dilip Lohar, and if, any grievance of the petitioner is there, that would be against her vendor i.e. (1) Rungtu Lohar, (2) Sheo Narayan Lohar, (3) Botha Lohar, (4) Raj Kishore Lohar and one (5) Dilip Lohar, and therefore, the petitioner will not be said to have any grievance against the plaintiff of the suit who is respondent No.1 since it is the admitted position that the registered sale deed dated 03.03.2001 has not been executed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1. 10. In that view of the matter and after taking into consideration the fact that the preliminary decree has been prepared against which the appeal has been dismissed and Takhtabandi has also been done and since the open space has been reported to be partitioned in favour of respondent No.1 therefore, the petitioner is having no grievance against the plaintiff. 11. So far as the argument advanced on behalf of Mr. Bhowmik, regarding impleadment as party to the writ petition Dilip Lohar, according to the considered view of this Court since the aforesaid issue has been decided by the trial court in an issue framed as issue No.8 holding therein that the Dilip Lohar and Dilip Oraon are two different identity against which the first appeal has been dismissed although the second appeal said to have been filed which is pending before this Court, be that as it may, this Court is to go by the party position as per the pleading made before the trial court in the plaint as would evident from the party position made in the plaint wherein the Dilip Oraon has been impleaded as respondent No.6, therefore, the contention which has been raised by the learned counsel appearing for the said Madho Lohar is not worth to be considered by this Court since it is the subject matter altogether of the second appeal lying pending before this Court and if any, observation will be made herein the merit of the second appeal will be affected. 12. 12. In view of the entirety of facts and circumstances the order passed by the trial court rejecting the petition filed by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. on the ground that the same if would be allowed, it may cause hindrance in proper adjudication, cannot be said to suffer from infirmity on the basis of facts and circumstances enumerated hereinabove. 13. In view thereof, no interference is required in the order impugned in exercise of power conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 14. Accordingly the writ petition fails and dismissed. 15. In consequence thereof, interim order stands vacated. 16. Interlocutory application being I.A. No.1404 of 2019 also stands disposed of.