Arun Kumar Jha, J.—The instant petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 06.05.2019 passed in Title Suit No. 136 of 2017 by the learned Sub Judge- XII, Patna whereby and whereunder the learned Sub Judge allowed the intervener application dated 17.05.2018 filed by the intervener/petitioner under Order 1, Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’).

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioners are plaintiffs of Title Suit No. 136/2017 which has been filed against the defendants/respondents 1st set for declaration of title and non-title of the defendants on the suit land apart from other reliefs. The suit property is one Plot No. 11 under Khata No. 1616 measuring an area of 4.28 acres situated at Mauza- Saidpur Digha, P.S.-Digha, District-Patna, which belonged to one Raja Chandeshwar Prasad Narayan Singh (hereinafter mentioned as ‘Late CPN Singh’), who died on 28.09.1941 leaving behind his four daughters, namely Janak Kishori Devi, Krishna Kishori Devi, Raj Kishori Devi and Girija Kishori Devi and one of the daughters, namely Janak Kishore Devi died issue-less. The disputed Plot No. 11 along with other properties had been partitioned between three daughters of Late CPN Singh in Partition Suit No. 75/1963 to the extent of 1/3rd share. Krishna Kishori Devi died leaving behind her two sons, namely Late Jagat Kishore Prasad Narayan Singh and Sri Ram Kishore Prasad Narayan Singh. The Plot No. 11 had an area of 6 Bigha and 16 Katha (4.28 acres) and in northern side 2 Bigha 6 Katha of land remained in share of Late Girija Kishori Devi, who died leaving behind her son, namely Birendra Dhari Singh, who also died leaving behind his son, namely Kaushal Kishore Kumar Singh, whose marriage was solemnized with one Rama Devi. Girija Devi sold her 1/3rd share of land including the disputed land in favour of Rama Devi through the registered sale deed dated 01.09.1992 and put her in possession. Later on, Rama Devi executed two registered sale deeds on 14.11.1996, one in favour of Punita Kumari with respect to 10 Katha of land and another in favour of Prakash Kumar for another 10 Katha and put them in possession. The plaintiffs are purchasers of certain portion of land from Prakash Kumar, who filed Title Suit No. 44/2002 for declaration of his title over disputed land and the suit was decreed and title of vendor of the plaintiffs was declared vide judgment dated 16.03.2005. The plaintiffs purchased 5 Katha and 12 Dhurs of land after passing of decree of Title Suit No. 44/2002. However, when the plaintiffs started to construct boundary wall, then the defendants made resistance to it along with other persons. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed the present suit. However, the defendants did not appear in the suit and the suit proceeded exparte. During pendency of the suit, one Laxmi Devi filed an application on 17.05.2018 under Order 1, Rule 10 (2) of the Code with prayer to add her party defendant to the suit on the ground that she had purchased the suit land from the rightful owner. According to the intervener/respondent 2nd set, the entire land of Plot No. 11 has been allotted to Raj Kishori Devi, which is apparent from the judgment passed in Title Suit No. 75/1963. During pendency of Title Suit No. 75/1963, Raj Kishori Devi had already sold the entire property of Plot No. 11 with consent of other co-sharers and for this reason, Plot No. 11 was allowed to be allotted in share and takhta of Raj Kishori Devi or to her purchaser. The plaintiffs filed a rejoinder on 05.10.2018 to the aforesaid intervener petition and made a prayer to dismiss the petition on the ground that property has been purchased by the intervener-Laxmi Devi from a person having no right or title in the property. The learned trial court allowed the petition of the intervener vide order dated 06.05.2019 and the said order is under challenge before this Court.

3. The learne