Birendra Sharma v. Anil Kumar Sharma And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.49 of 2016 ====================================================== Birendra Sharma .... .... Appellant/s

Versus

Anil Kumar Sharma & Ors .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Rajendra Prasad For the Respondent/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO ORAL ORDER 01-08-2016 Heard learned counsel Mr. Amar Nath Singh for the petitioner.

Perused the order dated 26.02.2016 passed by Subordinate Judge-I, Jehanabad in Eviction Suit No.104 of 2013 whereby the court below rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for adding the petitioner as party.

It appears that the plaintiff-respondent no.1 filed eviction suit against the defendants-respondents herein for their eviction. The present petitioner filed the application for being added as party in the eviction suit on the ground that in fact he is the real owner of the suit property. The question of title is involved between the petitioner and respondent no.1 in previously instituted suit which is now pending before the High Court in Second Appeal No.375 of 2013.

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.49 of 2016 (2) dt.01-08-2016 From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the court below held that the question of title is involved in Second Appeal No.375 of 2013. The present petitioner is not claiming to be the tenant nor he is claiming to be the landlord nor he has filed eviction suit. In fact the earlier suit filed by plaintiffrespondent no.1 for declaration of title with respect to the suit premises has already been decreed in favour of plaintiffrespondent no.1 and against that judgment and decree the present petitioner has filed title appeal, which was dismissed and against that second appeal is pending before the High Court. Therefore, the question to be decided in eviction suit is whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant between plaintiff-respondent no.1 with defendants-respondents or not and whether any ground mentioned in Section 11 of the B.B.C. Act is made out or not. For deciding this dispute the presence of the present petitioner who is claiming title is not at all required.

Therefore, in my opinion, in this eviction suit, the petitioner is not a necessary party. Thus, the court below has rightly rejected the application.

Accordingly, this civil miscellaneous application is dismissed.

Harish/- (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J) U