The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of establishing a prima facie case for injunction and the implications of adding parties to the suit based on their claimed interest in the subject matter.

On 10.08.2015, notice was issued in the matter and the petitioner was permitted to serve dasti notice. Order dated 27.08.2015 records that the respondents were validly served. The matter was accordingly adjourned for 04.09.2015. Today also, the respondent nos. 1 to 6 have not entered appearance.

2. Aggrieved by order dated 16.02.2015 in Title Suit No. 135 of 2006 whereby, application under Order I Rule 2(3) and Rule 10 C.P.C. has been allowed and respondent nos. 7 and 8 have been added as defendants in the suit, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. The petitioner is defendant no. 1 in Title Suit No. 135 of 2006. The suit was instituted for a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful khas possession over the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs asserted that the land pertaining to Revisional Survey Plot No. 292 under R.S. Khata No. 323 measuring an area about 1.10 acres, situated at village Kandari, Ranchi was recorded in the name of one Sheikh Chain in R.S. Record of Rights as “Kayami”. The said recorded tenant was in cultivating possession of the suit land and he remained in khas possession over the same till his death. After the death of Sheikh Chain in the year, 1945, his two sons namely, Sheikh Rahim and Sheikh Rahman came in possession over the suit land. Finally, the plaintiff no. 1 succeeded and inherited the suit property and came in khas possession over the same. The petitioner/defendant no. 1 filed written statement stating that defendant no. 2 has unnecessarily been impleaded as defendant in the suit. The defendant no. 2 has no interest in the suit property and he was not in khas possession over the suit land. The defendant no. 1 claimed that Khewat No. 10/1 was prepared in the name of Sidheshwar Nand Tiwary, Mahadeo Maheshwar Nand Tiwary, Hari Mohan Nand Tiwary and Hari Charan Nand Tiwary. It was asserted that khewatholder mortgaged the property with Kanthi Ram Pathak for Rs. 600/of zerpesagi khewat and Zerpesagi Khewat No. 35 under Khewat No. 10/1 was opened in the name of Kanthi Ram Pathak. The said Sidheshwar Nand Tiwary and Mahadeo Maheshwar Nand Tiwary redeemed the mortgaged amount to Kanthi Ram Pathak. It was claimed that other two brothers namely, Hari Mohan Nand Tiwary and Hari Charan Nand Tiwary did not make contribution for redemption of the mortgage. The mortgage-deed was also returned by Kanthi Ram Pathak to the two brothers namely, Sidheshwar Nand Tiwary and Mahadeo Maheshwar Nand Tiwary. In the pending suit, application dated 01.08.2014 was filed by respondent nos. 7 and 8 claiming interest in the suit schedule property. The said application has been allowed vide order dated 16.02.2015 and, aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Title Suit No. 135 of 2006 was instituted on a different cause of action. The plaintiffs asserted that the defendants are trying to disturb the khas possession of the plaintiffs on the basis of false and fabricated documents. The right, title and interest of the defendants over the suit property was denied. It was asserted that the defendants were trying to invade the legal right, title and possession of the plaintiffs and on an apprehension that they may interfere with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs by illegal means, the suit was instituted. The suit was for perpetual injunction for restraining the defendants from interfering with peaceful khas possession of the plaintiffs and therefore, no cause of action was disclosed in Title Suit No. 135 of 2006 against the respondent nos. 7 and 8. Since specific relief claimed by the plaintiffs was against the original defendants, addition of respondent nos. 7 and 8 was not necessary. Relying on decision in Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (1992) 2 SCC 524, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that merely because a person m