AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present application has been filed "for setting aside the order dated 30.07.2019 passed by the learned Sub-Judge-V, Saharsa in F.D. No. 28/2004, whereby and whereunder the prayer on behalf of the petitioner to allow him as an intervener in the proceeding has been rejected."
Learned counsel for the proposed intervenor/petitioner submits that he had purchased the property in the year 2014 from khatiyani raiyat and the same was mutated in his favour and rent receipt was granted. On the other hand, the plaintiffs had claimed the land in question on the basis of khatiyan which was not final. It is therefore submitted that in the interest of justice, the learned court below ought to have allowed his intervention petition.
Having heard the learned counsel for the proposed intervenor/petitioner and on consideration of materials on record, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter.
On a perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the final decree has been directed to be prepared in the year 2007 itself, whereas on the proposed intervenor/petitioner's own saying, he has purchased the land subsequently in the year 2014. It further appears that he had admitted in paragraph 7 of his petition that in new survey the entry stands in the name of the decree holder. The proposed intervenor/petitioner has already filed Title Suit No. 392 of 2017.
5.In the above circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity or other jurisdictional error in the impugned order. The petition stands dismissed
Needless to say, nothing herein shall prejudice the merits of the case of the petitioner in Title Suit No. 392 of 2017.