Sunil Dutta Mishra, J. – Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This Civil Miscellaneous Application has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 17.01.2018 passed by learned Munsif, Araria in Title Suit No. 332 of 1998 whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the petitioners under Order – 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code for their impleadment as party-defendants was rejected.

3. The plaintiffs (private respondents No. 4 to 8 herein) have filed a title suit bearing Title Suit No. 332 of 1998 claiming title of the suit property on the basis of adverse possession in which defendants State of Bihar represented through the District Collector, Araria filed written statement and contested the suit to the effect that the said suit land does not belong to the plaintiffs.

4. Petitioners claimed that they are necessary and proper parties being in possession of the suit property from last more than 30 years and cultivating the same, when they came to know about the suit, filed the impleadment petition dated 20.02.2017 under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure and sought for their impleadment as defendants stating that the land in question was a ‘pond’ during the Revenue Survey operation but in due course of time the same was filled up with soil and the nature of land substantially changed and it became cultivable land and they are cultivating the same to maintain their family and in due course they applied the competent authority for settlement of the land who initiated the process of settlement of the land in question in favour of them but due to this suit filed by the plaintiff the S.D.O. Araria kept the matter in abeyance.

5. The learned trial Court rejected the petition for impleadment holding that the interest of petitioners are as interest of the State of Bihar and the State of Bihar is contesting party in this suit, hence, the intervenor petitioners are not proper and necessary party for the proper disposal of the suit.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate that these petitioners being in exclusive, peaceful and vacant possession of the suit property and are cultivating the same from last many years and if the plaint of the plaintiffs being allowed and decreed, then the interest of petitioner are likely to be affected and prejudiced and therefore the learned trial Court erred in rejecting the petition for impleadment filed by the petitioners. It is further submitted that allowing the impleadment application would not cause prejudice to the interest of the plaintiffs who have instituted the suit based on no evidence at all and they have claimed government property to be their own property.

7. The petitioners who are in possession of the suit land are necessary party having substantive material and evidence to contest the suit and supplement the stand of State of Bihar who also contesting the suit of the plaintiffs.

8. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs /respondent Nos. 4 to 8 / private respondents submits that the learned trial Court has rightly observed that the petitioners (intervenor-petitioners) are not proper and necessary parties to the suit for the purpose of disposal and rejected the petition for impleadment by the impugned order and is not a fit case for interference by this Court. He has further submitted that the petitioners have claimed their rights against the State of Bihar who is contesting this suit and have liberty to file separate suit as no relief has been claimed against the petitioners in the suit. Further, he has submitted that under principles of dominus litis the plaintiffs have right to make party only to those against whom they have claimed relief.

9. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the State is contesting the suit, however, to avoid multiplicity of the claims by the parties on the suit land he has no objection if the petitioners who are claiming their possession on the