Patna High CourtC.Misc./888/2017dismissed

Janardan Baitha And ANR v. Birendra Kumar Sahay And ORS

2017-09-13Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.888 of 2017 ===========================================================

1. Janardan Baitha

2. Yogendra Baitha Both Sons of late Indrashan Dhobhi, Resident of Village-Jaijor, P.S. Aandar, District Siwan.

.... .... Intervenors/Petitioners

Versus

1. Birendra Kumar Sahay

2. Brajendra Kumar Sahay

3. Shailendra Kumar Sahay All Sons of late Ram Gopal Sahay, Resident of Village-Jaijor, P.S. Aandar, District Siwan.

.... .... Plaintiffs/Respondent 1st Set

4. Anil Kumar Dubey, Son of Braj Braj Kishor Dubey

5. Hare Ram Dubey, Son of Late Nagu Dubey Both Resident of Village-Jaijor, P.S. Aandar, District Siwan. .... .... Plaintiffs/Respondent 1st Set =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramchandra Sahni For the Respondent/s : Mr.

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 13-09-2017 An application filed by the petitioner for intervention, under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been rejected by the court below by impugned order, dated 16.03.2017,

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.888 of 2017 dt.13-09-2017 2/2 passed in Title Suit No. 697 of 2009.

2. It appears that respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have filed the said Title Suit No. 697 of 2009 for declaring a sale-deed, dated 08.09.2008, executed by respondent No. 5 in favour of respondent No. 4, has become void ab initio. The petitioners, claiming to be in possession of the land in question, on the basis of oral gift made by the ancestors of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, claiming title over the said suit land, filed the application for intervention.

3. Learned court below has rightly held that the petitioners are neither necessary nor proper parties, since the dispute is mainly between respondent-1st set and respondent Nos. 4 and 5 (respondent-2nd set) with respect to execution of the saledeed. There is no merit in the application.

4. The application is, accordingly, dismissed. (Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) Praveen-II/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 14.09.2017 Transmission Date N/A