Umesh Prasad v. Mohtasam Ali Khan And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7859 of 2015 ======================================================

1. Umesh Prasad S/O Late Dahaur Gope Resident of village:- Rahimpur Tola Mahmadpur, P.S:- Phulwarisharif, Dist. Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. Mohtasam Ali Khan son of Md. Ali Khan, Resident of village Abulahchak, P.S:- Phulwarisharif at present residing at Macsons shoes House New Market Patna.

2. Sanjeet Kumar son of Late Shiv Balak Prasad, Resident of village Rahimpur, P.S. & P.O. Parsa Bazar, Dist. Patna. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kumar Alok For the Respondent/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO ORAL ORDER 07-04-2016 Heard Mr. Kumar Alok, learned counsel for the petitioner.

By the order dated 28.11.2014, learned Munsif-II, Patna in Title Suit No. 35 of 1991 allowed the intervention application filed by the intervener- respondent for being added as party in Title Suit on the ground that he has purchased part of the property in the year 2013.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the intervener has not acquired any title in the property on the basis of purchase through Power of Attorney holder but the Court below has erroneously allowed him to be added as party. According to the learned counsel, the application was filed only for the purpose to delay in disposal of the old Suit which is of the year 1991 and the evidence of both the parties have already been closed.

Patna High Court CWJC No.7859 of 2015 (2) dt.07-04-2016 2/2 It is admitted fact that the intervener is a purchaser during the pendency of the Suit. The provision contained in order 1 rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure speaks about the jurisdiction of the Court and the Court has the discretion to add a necessary party. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amit Kumar Shaw and another Vs. Farida Khatoon and another, AIR 2005 Supreme Court 2209 and also again in the case of A. Nawab John and others Vs. V. N. Subramaniyam, (2012) 7 SCC 738 have clearly held that a person who has purchased a portion of the property has a right to be added as party to protect his interest and the Court below should liberally allow the application. In such view of the matter when the matter has already been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J) Mishra/- U