State Of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner vs Prabhat Singhania

Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J

The instant CMP has been filed to challenge the legality of the impugned order dated 05.02.2024 (Annnexure-5) passed by learned Sub- Judge- X, Deoghar in O.S. No.57 of 2009, whereby and whereunder Misc. Civil Application No.23 of 2023 filed under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the CPC on behalf of the interveners Pradeep Singhania & Ors. has been allowed and the plaintiffs/ petitioners were directed to implead them as defendants.

The aforesaid Original Suit being O.S. No.57 of 2009 has been filed by the State through the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar & Ors., impleading defendant Nos.1 to 5 for a declaration that the suit property as fully detailed in the schedule of the plaint was a public property and was national heritage which was fraudulently being claimed by defendant no.1. A further declaration has been sought for that the suit property was never in the name of one Nathmal Singhania in his personal capacity.

Original defendant No.1 appeared in the suit in the year 2009 and contested the same, inter-alia, on the ground that the suit property was purchased by one Kedar Nath Marwari on the basis of registered sale-deed bearing No.75 in the year 1935. Defendant No.2 also appeared and contested the suit.

Intervener application was filed under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC on behalf of defendant Nos.6 to 22 claiming that they were also the heirs and descendants of said Kedar Nath Marwari and have right to contest the suit as they had vested interest in the property.

Learned Trial Court vide the impugned order dated 05.02.2024 does not appear to have given specific reason for permitting the interlocutory application for being impleaded, rather has focused on case law.

It is argued by learned counsel for the plaintiffs/ petitioners that it is a declaratory suit without any prayer for recovery of possession and the central issue to the determination of the suit is that whether it is a public property or the private property.

In the said suit, it is contended that the plaintiffs are a dominus litis and the intervener application has been filed after a long time of 14 years of filing of the suit.

The matter for consideration before this Court is “Whether intervenor applicants are necessary parties being impleaded in the suit after 14 years of filing of the suit?

After impleadment any party has a right to file written statement and lead evidence and therefore, such petition should be filed at the earliest unless and until the parties concerned had no knowledge about it.

This is a suit of the year 2009 and one intervenor application was filed by Dilip Kumar Singhania in 2012 which was allowed vide order dated 26.04.2014. Dilip Kumar Singhania is none other than one of the cousins of these intervenor applicants, therefore, it cannot be said that they had no knowledge about the pending suit. A report was called for from the learned Trial Court regarding stage of trial which has been received and as per the report, issues were framed on 28.01.2015 and after closing of plaintiff’s evidence, now the case is at the stage of defendant’s evidence since 30.07.2025.

In any case, the declaration of title in the present suit will not bind the intervener applicants as no relief has been claimed against them. More than 20 parties have been impleaded in the suit 14 years after the filing of the suit which will considerably protect the trial, which is now at the stage of defendant’s evidence.

Under the aforesaid, facts and circumstance, impugned order is not sustainable and is accordingly set aside

Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed.

Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.