Arun Kumar Jha, J.—The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 09.12.2019 passed in Title Suit No. 106 of 1994 by the learned Sub Judge, Jagdishpur, Bhojpur whereby and whereunder the learned Sub Judge allowed an intervener application dated 22.11.2019 filed by the interveners under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’).

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner/ plaintiff has filed Title Suit No. 106 of 1994 for partition of Schedule 1 property of the plaint. The plaintiff has also sought declaration in respect of a Will executed by one Samrajo Kunwar to be null and void. The Title Suit No. 106 of 1994 remained pending for quite long time and, thereafter, the parties entered into a compromise and, accordingly, the compromise petition was filed in the aforesaid title suit. Meanwhile, the interveners/ petitioners/ respondent nos. 2 to 8, claiming themselves to be purchasers, from the original defendant, namely Laxman Upadhyay, of a part of scheduled land of Title Suit No. 106 of 1994, filed an intervener petition under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) read with Section 151 of the Code on 22.11.2019. Both the plaintiff and the original defendant filed their rejoinder on 27.11.2019 opposing the intervener petition. The learned trial court, after hearing the parties, allowed the intervener application vide order dated 09.12.2013, which has been challenged in the instant civil miscellaneous petition.

3. Mr. S.S. Dvivedi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner vehemently contended that the impugned order is not sustainable and it has been passed in an arbitrary manner. The impugned order has been passed illegally against the settled principles of law. The learned trial court ignored the proposition of law that while considering a petition under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Code, the controversy raised between the parties to the litigation should be looked into and not the question/controversy between the parties to the suit and third parties. The learned trial court has also not considered that the purchasers were having knowledge of the suit since they purchased the suit property which is a small portion of the total property and were seeking to enforce their right, both against the plaintiff and the defendant and such investigation is beyond the scope of the suit.

4. Mr. Dvivedi further submitted that if the purchasers were having knowledge, even if there is allegation of collusion between the plaintiff and the defendant to defeat the interest of the purchasers, the dispute raised by the purchasers cannot be adjudicated in the present suit.

5. Mr. Dvivedi further submitted that one Rajroop Tiwari, who was the common ancestor, was having three sons, namely Manshi Tiwari, Doma Tiwari and Bhikhari Tiwari. Rajroop Tiwari had two marriages and Manshi Tiwari was the son of first wife whereas Doma Tiwari and Bhikhari Tiwari were sons of second wife. Subsequently, Manshi Tiwari got separated with his 1/3 share and Doma Tiwari and Bhikhari Tiwari got 2/3 share of Rajroop Tiwari from the joint family property. Doma Tiwari died issue-less in jointness with Bhikhari Tiwari and in this manner 1/3 share of Manshi Tiwari continued in his possession, whereas Bhikhari continued to hold 2/3 share of his joint family property. Manshi Tiwari had two sons, namely Shiv Dayal Tiwari and Daib Dayal Tiwari. The original plaintiff Chandramani Kunwar was the wife of Daib Dayal Tiwari, who filed the case on her behalf as well as for original plaintiff no.2 Pawan Kumar, minor son of Brij Bihari Tiwari. On the other hand, Samrajo Kunwar is the wife of original defendant-Shiv Dayal Tiwari. Bikhari Tiwari had six sons including Brij Bihari Tiwari, who has five sons. The original plaintiff no.2 Pawan Kumar is one of the biological sons of Brij Bihari Tiwari, who was taken in adoption by plaintiff n