The right to intervene in ongoing execution proceedings is denied if the petitioner has no established interest in the property and the rights of prior parties have been conclusively determined.

JUDGMENT :

ARUN KUMAR JHA, J.

The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 12.12.2022 passed in Misc. Case No. 227/1996 by learned Additional District Judge-XIV, Patna whereby and whereunder the petition of the intervener/petitioner dated 30.07.2010 filed under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) has been rejected along with another petition filed by some other persons under Section 151 of the Code.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioner is that she had purchased the land bearing Khata No. 145, Khesra No. 3205 area 4275 sq.ft. (3 decimals), Khata No. 763, Khesra No. 3206 area 5 decimals and Khata No. 145, Khesra No. 3207 area 6 decimals on 16.10.2008 from one Krishna Dutta, son of Late Shiv Lal Sao vide a registered sale deed. The petitioner came to know about Misc. Case No. 227/1996 between Bhagwat Prasad and Krishna Dutta, which has been going on with regard to partition of joint family property in the light of judgment/order dated 10.10.1996 passed in Civil Appeal No. 7475/1994 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court modified the decree passed by the High Court with certain directions. The land in question purchased by the petitioner fell in share of Krishna Dutta being part of Schedule II property of Partition Award and the nature of land is ‘ditch’. The petitioner claims as per schedule of Partition Award and direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the land came in possession and ownership of Krishna Dutta and the petitioner purchased the same after payment of consideration amount and came into possession of said land. After coming to know about the pendency of Misc. Case No. 227/1996, the petitioner filed a petition under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Code for adding her as party in Misc. Case No. 227/1996. A rejoinder to the petition was filed on behalf of the respondents opposing the prayer of the petitioner. The learned Additional District Judge after hearing the parties dismissed the petition dated 30.07.2010 finding no merit in it vide order dated 12.12.2022. The said order is under challenge before this Court.

3. Prior to entering into the submission of the parties, it would be beneficial to take stock of chronology of the events leading to institution of Misc. Case No. 227/1996.

4. It appears from the records that there was dispute over partition of joint family property amongs the sons of Late Benga Sao, namely Bhagwat Prasad and Krishna Dutta. With the intervention of well wishers of the family, the matter was referred to arbitration and, accordingly, the arbitrators (Panchas) delivered the award on 26.06.1970 and the same was registered on 04.08.1970. Thereafter, Bhagwat Prasad and Sri Thakur Satyadeo Swami Jee Maharaj under the Sewait Bhagwat Prasad filed Title Suit No. 54 of 1977/58 of 1978 in the court of learned Sub Judge-2nd, Patna to make the registered award rule of the court and Bhagwat Prasad got ex-parte decree dated 25.07.1978.

Krishna Dutta filed Misc. Case No. 71/1979 for setting aside the ex-parte decree dated 25.07.1978, which was subsequently set aside vide order dated 13.12.1980 and Title Suit No. 54 of 1977/58 of 1978 was restored. Thereafter, vendor of the petitioner, namely Krishna Dutta filed Misc. Case No. 383 of 1986 in the High Court against the judgment of learned trial court making award as part of decree, but the same was dismissed by the High Court vide judgment and decree dated 28.04.1994. Then Krishan Dutta filed Civil Appeal No. 7475/1994 before the Hon’ble Suprem