Mahangu Yadav and Another vs Lalkishun Yadav and Others

S.N. Hussain, J.—Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioners, who are aggrieved, by order dated 22.12.2004, by which the learned 2nd Munsif, Arrah (Bhojpur) has rejected their petition under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the CPC for adding them as parties to Title Suit No. 138 of 2003, which was filed by opposite party 1st set. After hearing the contentions of the Learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as from the materials on record including the impugned order, it is apparent that the plaintiffs claim to be the heirs of purchaser from the original owner, namely, Rangi Gawala. It also transpires that the intervenor-petitioners failed to show that they had any concern with Rangi Gawala or the land in dispute. Furthermore, the plaintiffs are dominus litus and they had right to choose their opponent and in this case they had not impleaded the intervenor-petitioners and hence there was no occasion to implead them as parties to the suit, specially when the learned court below has found that there was no basis for the claim of the intervenor-petitioners and also if the intervenor-petitioners are not parties to the suit, the same cannot be binding upon them.

In the aforesaid circumstances, I do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and accordingly this civil revision is dismissed.