The Patna High Court, while allowing a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 26.03.2018 passed by the learned Munsif in a Title Suit whereby and whereunder the learned Munsiff rejected the petition of intervenor-petitioner filed under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for impleadment of the petitioner as a defendant in the aforesaid title suit, held that the petitioner has been able to show substantial interest in the suit property and she could also claim certain relief(s) against the plaintiff and defendants.
Brief Facts:
A Title Suit was filed by the private respondents who are Trustees of one Pachrukhi Goshala for declaration that Pachrukhi Goshala is the rightful owner and is in possession of the suit land through its trustees and survey entry in the name of defendants is illegal. On coming to know about the pending Title Suit, the petitioner, who claimed her right, title, and possession over the suit property, filed an intervention petition under Order 1 Rule 10 r/w Section 151 of the Code on 08.11.2017 to make her a party as intervenor defendant in the said suit. After hearing both parties, the petition of the petitioner was rejected on 26.03.2018 by the learned Munsif and the said order has been challenged in the present petition.
Contentions of the Petitioners:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the petitioner had purchased a part of the land through a registered sale deed dated 14.05.2015 along with another land from one Vijay Chandra Das and got mutated her name vide mutation appeal dated 09.12.2016. After the mutation, the petitioner has been regularly paying the rent and obtaining rent receipts. The Circle Officer issued a land possession certificate in the name of the present petitioner.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the present petition is not maintainable and the learned trial court has rightly rejected the intervention petition of the petitioner. The petitioner is not a necessary party in the suit as the survey khatiyan was published in the name of the State of Bihar, showing some persons as Avaidh Dakhalkar. Hence, only the State of Bihar and other persons being shown as ‘Avaidh Dakhalkar’ are necessary parties.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that the Court has ample power to strike out the name of any person at any stage of the proceeding. It is entirely at the discretion of the court and the said discretion is to be exercised by the court for effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit.
The Court observed that in a suit relating to property in order that a third party may be impleaded, he should have a direct or legal interest in the subject matter of the litigation as distinguished from a commercial interest. Legal interest so interpreted means that the result of the suit would affect the third party illegally. The Court said that the petitioner has been able to show substantial interest in the suit property and she could also claim certain relief(s) against the plaintiff and defendants.
The decision of the Court:
The Patna High Court, allowing the petition, held that the petitioner appears to be a necessary party who needs to be impleaded as one of the defendants in the Title Suit.
Case Title: Smt. Baby Devi v The State of Bihar & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Arun Kumar Jha
Case no.: CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.726 of 2018
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Deepak Kumar Sinha
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Manoj Kumar and Mr. Ram Pravesh Nath Tiwari
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source : https://www.familyfirstsolicitors.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Mesher-and-marrtin-order-768x512.jpg
