IMPORTANT POINT
The court clarified the criteria for necessary parties under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, emphasizing that a party's independent claim does not warrant inclusion in a suit if it does not affect existing parties' relief.

JUDGMENT :

ARUN KUMAR JHA, J.

1. The instant civil miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 16.08.2022 passed in Title Suit No. 889 of 2017 by learned Sub Judge-XVI, Gopalganj, whereby and whereunder the petition dated 22.03.2022 filed under Order 1 Rule 10 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for brevity ‘the Code’) for adding the petitioner as a party defendant has been rejected.

2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the present case are that the plaintiffs/respondents 1^st set filed Title Suit No. 889 of 2017 on 17.10.2017 before the court of learned Sub Judge- XVI, Gopalganj seeking declaration that the suit land is the purchased land of the plaintiffs and had been coming into their peaceful possession till the time they were dispossessed by the defendants 1^st set/respondents 2^nd set who are tresspassers. The plaintiffs further sought recovery of possession and entry of the suit land by the defendants 1^st set in their sale deed as illegal and void. The plaintiffs also sought permanent injunction against the defendants 1^st set from making any change over the suit land. The intervenor/petitioner, on coming to know about pendency of Title Suit No. 889 of 2017 on 08.03.2022, enquired into the matter, applied for certified copy of the plaint as well as order sheets and after obtaining these documents, filed impleadment petition under Order 1 Rule 10 and Section 151 of the Code for adding him as party defendant on the ground that the petitioner is a necessary and proper party having bonafide right, title and interest over the disputed land. The petitioner put forward his case that the land in question appertaining to Khata No. 130, Khesra No. 1232, 1233 and 1234, area 7 katha 10 dhurs situated in Mauza – Sareya, Ward No. 4, Thana No. 83 under P.S. and District – Gopalganj was khatiyani land of Dal Sah. On 01.12.1941, Dal Sah executed a registered gift deed in favour of his daughter Jyotiya and one Bikarma Sah and they came into peaceful possession over the land in question. Out of the said land, Jyotiya transferred 2 katha 10 dhurs land to the grandfather of the petitioner namely, Kamal Dubey on 30.08.1948 and Kamal Dubey came into possession over the said land. Kamal Dubey died leaving behind his son Bhrigunath Dubey, who died leaving behind his two sons, the petitioner Virendra Dubey and co-owner Ravindra Dubey. The petitioner and his brother came into joint possession on 2 katha 10 dhurs land. The petitioner raised 4 feet high boundary wall around the land. The petitioner further submitted that on the basis of the sale deed of 1948, the petitioner has been coming into title and possession of the suit land and therefore, he is a necessary party. However, the plaintiffs/respondent nos. 1 and 2 contested the claim of the petitioner by filing reply on 11.04.2022 and the learned trial court after hearing the parties dismissed the intervention petition of the petitioner vide order dated 16.08.2022. The said order is under challenge before this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is bad in the eyes of law as well as on facts. It is an arbitrary and illegal order. The learned trial court exceeded its jurisdiction in passing the impugned order. The learned trial court has failed to appreciate that the petitioner is a necessary and proper party having bonafide right, title and interest over the suit land. The learned trial court has not considered that it is the object of the provision under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code to bring on record all the persons who are necessary parties to the dispute so that dispute may be finally determined in their presence and multiplicity of