Anil Kumar Sinha, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the State and learned Counsel for respondent No. 4.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order, dated 31.08.2019, passed, by learned Additional District Judge-III, Kaimur, at Bhabhua, in Title Appeal No. 39 of 2014, by which the respondent no.4 has been added as respondent in the appeal on an application, dated 16.10.2017, filed by the respondent no. 4 under Order I Rule 10 of the C.P.C.

3. Title Suit No. 157 of 2003 was filed by the petitioner for declaration of title and correction of entry made in the revisional survey khatiyan on the basis of the fact that the petitioner is the khatiyani owner of the suit land, on which he has constructed his residential house and is residing for the last many years.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that learned Lower Appellate Court, while allowing respondent no. 4 to be added as a party-respondent in the appeal, has committed grave error of law inasmuch as the respondent no. 4 has got no right, title and interest over the said land and has been claiming an easementary right, which cannot be decided in the present appeal.

5. In support of the argument,