Manager Baitha v. Most. Sampatia Devi And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8637 of 2014 ====================================================== Manager Baitha Son of Late Narayan Baitha resident of villageMotichapper Bankatwa, PS and Anchal- Chanpatia, Post office- Chaubey Tola, District- West Champaran .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Most. Sampatia Devi Wife of Late Chattu Baitha
2. Umrawati Devi daughter of Chattu Baitha Both resident of Village Motichapper Bankatwa, PS and Anchal- Chanpatia, Post OfficeChaubey Tola, District- West Champaran.
3. Zamuddin Mian Son of Habib Mian resident of village- Motichapper Bankatwa, PS and Anchal- Chanpatia, Post office- Chaubey Tola, District- West Champaran.
4. Israfil Mian
5. Muslim Mian Both sons of Isahaque Mian resident of villageMotichapper Bankatwa, P.S and Anchal- Chanpatia, Post OfficeChaubey Tola, District- West Champaran. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pathak Dhananjay Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. NATH ORAL ORDER 03-03-2016 The present application has been filed questioning the legal sustainability of the impugned order whereby the learned court below has allowed the prayer of the respondent-2nd set to be impleaded as respondents in the appeal.
From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the respondent-2nd set are purchasers of the suit property by the registered sale deed from the respondents in the appeal. It also
Patna High Court CWJC No.8637 of 2014 (2) dt.03-03-2016 transpires that after selling away of the suit property the parties to the appeal have entered into compromise. The learned court below has taken into notice the fact that the intervenor-respondent 2nd set are entitled to protect their interest as their vendors have not been protecting their interest.
In this view of the matter, this Court does not find that the learned court below has acted with material irregularity or illegality in passing the impugned order impleading the respondent 2nd set as intervernor-respondents in the appeal. The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. (V. Nath, J) Devendra/- U