Rajesh Mahto And ANR v. Hanuman Prasad And ORS

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.230 of 2017 (2) dt.08-02-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.230 of 2017 ====================================================== Rajesh Mahto & Anr .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

Hanuman Prasad & Ors .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Baidya Nath Thakur For the Respondent/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO ORAL ORDER 08-02-2017 Heard the learned counsel, Mr. Baidya Nath Thakur for the petitioners.

Perused the impugned order dated 17.09.2016 passed by learned Munsif I, Darbhanga in Eviction Execution Case No.3 of 1996 whereby the learned court below has allowed the application filed under Order I Rule 10(2) C.P.C. for adding the purchaser from the decree holder as party along with the decree holder. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that after the decree, the intervener has purchased the property on 07.08.2012. The decree holder admitted this fact and has not objected to the addition and, therefore, in addition, admittedly, his name has also been added as executant in the execution case. In such circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction particularly when the eviction decree is against the

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.230 of 2017 (2) dt.08-02-2017 judgment debtor-petitioner. The judgment debtor cannot dictate the court that who will be added as party particularly when the decree holder is on record.

Accordingly, this civil miscellaneous application is dismissed.

(Mungeshwar Sahoo, J) Saurabh/- U T