Arun Kumar Jha, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent no.1 on the point of admission and I intend to dispose of this petition at this stage itself.

2. The intervenors/petitioners have filed the instant petition seeking the following reliefs:—

“(i) Quashing/setting aside the part of the impugned order dated 17.01.2023 (Annx-4) passed by the learned Additional District Judge VI, Danapur, Patna, in Title Appeal No.-79 of 2019 (Divya Kumari & others vs. Jugeshwar Nath Srivastava), whereby and whereunder the intervention applications of the present petitioners no. 1 to 4 dt. 06.12.2022 (Annx-2), as well as the intervention application of the present petitioners no. 5 to 6 dt.06.01.2023 (Annx-3), both filed U/O 1 Rule 10 (2) C.P.C. for their own impleadment in the pending Title Appeal as Co-appellants have been rejected.

(ii) Allowing the intervenors-petitioners’ application dt. 06.12.2022 (Annx-2) and also dt. 06.01.2023 (Annx-3), both filed U/O 1 Rule 10 (2) C.P.C. and implead them in the pending Title Appeal as Co-appellants, as these intervenors have admittedly purchased the suit land during pendency of the Title suit from the Plaintiffs.

(iii) Holding and declaring that the learned court below while passing the impugned order dt. 17.01.2023 (Annx-4) has failed to exercise his jurisdiction vested in him, and also failed to protect the right, title and interest of the intervenorspetitioners over the suit land.

(iv) Granting any other relief/reliefs for which the petitioners may be found entitled to”.

3. The learned counsel for the intervenors/petitioners submitted that the intervenors/petitioners have purchased the lands measuring 08 Katha 03 Dhur under Khata No. 144, Survey Plot No.363 (Part), Thana No. 23, Mauza-Saguna, Danapur, District- Patna from the plaintiffs/respondent 2nd party vide various registered sale deeds during the pendency of the concerned title suit.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that in the year 2011, a Title Suit No. 112 of 2011 (Smt. Sudha Devi and others vs. Sri Jugeshwar Nath Srivastava) was filed by the plaintiffs-respondents 2nd party in the court of learned Sub-Judge, Danapur, Patna for declaration of title and for a decree of removal of encroachment against the sole defendant and also for removal of construction of house/shops made by the defendant over the suit land. The sole defendant appeared in the suit and filed his written statement requesting for dismissal of the suit. Thereafter, the said title suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed on contest without granting any relief to the plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 03.08.2019 passed by the learned trial court. Being aggrieved with the said judgment and decree dated 03.08.2019, the plaintiffs filed Title Appeal No.79 of 2019 before the learned District Judge, Patna which is pending before the learned Additional District Judge- VI, Danapur for disposal.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that during the pendency of the said title appeal, the petitioner nos. 1 to 4 and the petitioner nos. 5 & 6 filed their respective intervention applications under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred as ‘CPC’) on 06.12.2022 and 06.01.2023, respectively for their impleadment in the title appeal. The defendant/respondent filed his rejoinder to both the applications dated 06.12.2023 and 06.01.2023 and prayed for dismissal of the same. Thereafter, the learned appellate court below, without considering the issues, dismissed the aforesaid applications on frivolous and unsustainable ground vide the impugned order dated 17.01.2023.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that undisputedly the present petitioners are the transferee- pendente lite and the representative-in-interest over the suit land as the same have been purchased by them through various registered sale deeds executed by the plaintiffs. The learned counse