ORDER : The present civil miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 20.12.2021 (Annexure-2 to the present petition) passed by Sub-Judge-I, Ranchi in Original (Partition) Suit No. 70/2020, whereby the petitioners have been directed to remove the defects in the plaint and to take steps for adding the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi as party defendant. 2. Mr. Shashank Shekhar, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the plaintiffs/petitioners have instituted a partition suit being Original (Partition) Suit No. 70 of 2020 pending in the court of Sub-Judge-I, Ranchi seeking relief of a preliminary decree for partition of the plaintiffs’ share in the suit property and after appointment of survey knowing Pleader Commissioner, separate Takhta of the plaintiffs be carved out, decree be made final and the plaintiffs be put in Khas and exclusive possession of the same. In the said suit, the Sub-Judge-I, Ranchi vide impugned order dated 20.12.2021 has, however, directed the petitioners to add the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi as defendant observing that the parties are members of Schedule Tribe and the case is at initial stage and as such, they shall not be prejudiced if the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi is added as party to the suit. It has further been observed that to avoid any future complication with respect to the parties to the suit which may be raised by the proposed defendant, it is appropriate to add the said authority as party-defendant in the suit in terms with proviso to Order-I Rule 3 CPC, which is a mandatory provision. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the court below has misconstrued the settled proposition of law as envisaged under Section 46(3-A) of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, which provides that the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi has to be a necessary party in all suits of civil nature relating to any holding or portion thereof in which one of the parties to the suit is a member of Schedule Tribe and the other is not a member of Schedule Tribe. It is also submitted that learned Sub-Judge-I has not considered Section 46(3-A) of the Act, 1908 in its true perspective as the present partition suit has been filed claiming specific share in the suit property between the co-sharers who are the members of Schedule Tribe and all the parties are joint owners of the suit property. It is also submitted that learned Sub-Judge-I has not considered Section 46(3-A) of the Act, 1908 in its true perspective as the present partition suit has been filed claiming specific share in the suit property between the co-sharers who are the members of Schedule Tribe and all the parties are joint owners of the suit property. Hence, State Amendments (Bihar) inserted vide Bihar Scheduled Areas Regulation, 1969 by which the said proviso was added in Order-I Rule 3 CPC for its application to the Scheduled Areas in the erstwhile State of Bihar has no application in the facts and circumstance of the present case. As such, the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi is not a necessary party in the said suit. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners puts reliance on a judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of “Uma Pada Choudhary & Anr. Vs. Panchanand Choudhary & Ors.” reported in AIR 2006 Jhr. 82, wherein it has been held that since no declaration of title and/or possession was sought against the State of Bihar, there was no necessity for impleading the State of Bihar as a defendant in the suit. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners puts further reliance on the judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of “Kali Charan Mahto & Ors. Vs. Gangadhar Mahto & Ors.” reported in 2019 (4) JCR 192 (Jhr.), wherein it has been observed that since a partition suit does not relate to declaration of title or possession relating to immovable properties, proviso to Order-I Rule 3 CPC is not applicable. 6. I have perused Order-1 Rule 3 CPC, State Amendments (Bihar) inserted vide Bihar Scheduled Areas Regulation, 1969 made applicable w.e.f 08.02.1969, which provides that the Deputy Commissioner is to be mandatorily joined as defendant in any suit for declaration of title or for possession relating to immovable properties of a member of Schedule Tribes as specified in the Schedule to the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. 7. I have also perused Section 46(3-A) of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 which provides that the Deputy Commissioner shall be a necessary party in all suits of a civil nature relating to any holding or portion thereof in which one of the parties to the suit is a member of the Schedule Tribe and the other party is not a member of the Schedule Tribe. 8. In view of the aforesaid provisions, it is apparent that in any suit of civil nature where one of the parties is a member of the scheduled tribe and other is not a member of the Scheduled Tribe, the Deputy Commissioner shall be a necessary party. The purpose behind it is to check filing of collusive suit for transfer of any land belonging to a member of Scheduled Tribe so as to defeat the purpose of the Act, 1908. 9. In the case in hand, the suit filed by the petitioners is not for declaration of title or possession over the land, rather the same is a partition suit filed against the co-sharers and both the parties are the members of Scheduled Tribe. Moreover, no declaration of title and/or possession has been sought against the State of Jharkhand. Thus, the Deputy Commissioner being the representative of the State shall be not a necessary party in the present partition suit. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be directed to implead the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi as a party-defendant in the same. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order dated 20.12.2021 passed by the Sub-Judge-I, Ranchi is hereby quashed. The court is directed to proceed with the case ignoring the defect as pointed out by the Seristedar of the Civil Court, Ranchi. 11. The present C.M.P is accordingly allowed.