IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S.A. No. 397 of 2018 Kashi Nath Singh and Ors. … … Appellants Versus Mahendra Bhagat @ Mahendra Jaiswal and others … … Respondents ---

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---

For the Appellant : Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, Advocate : M/s Mahi, Advocate ---

19/15th January 2026

1. Learned counsel for the appellants has placed the order-sheet from the trial court’s records and has submitted that the plaintiffs had filed Title Suit against two defendants only and the application filed by the State seeking intervention was rejected vide order dated 06.09.2000. Subsequently, the evidence of the plaintiffs was closed on 30.01.2004 and the evidence of the defendants commenced.

2. However, another application was filed by the State seeking intervention under Order I Rule 10 of CPC and the said application of the State was allowed on 02.04.2005 and thereafter the evidence of the defense witnesses continued.

3. The State was granted repeated time to file their written-State and ultimately the State had filed the written statement which was taken on record vide order dated 03.05.2006 upon payment of cost.

4. The learned counsel submits that thereafter again the evidence of defense witnesses was continued. He submits that a petition was also filed by the State for recall of the witnesses of the plaintiffs for their cross- examination and the State duly cross-examined the witnesses of the plaintiffs.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the court did not pass any order asking the plaintiffs to amend the plaint in view of addition of the State as a party defendant and in view of the written statement filed by the State and therefore on account of procedural lapse, a substantial question of law is required to be framed.

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and going through the records, this Court finds that the application filed by the State seeking intervention was allowed and the State also filed written statement and the witnesses of the plaintiffs were also recalled for cross-examination by the State. This court is of the considered view that it was for the plaintiffs themselves to take a call as to whether the plaint was required to be amended or not and no specific order of the Court is required for that purpose.

7. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that on the alleged procedural lapse, no substantial question of law is required to be framed.

8. At this, the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that otherwise also, he has substantial question of law, so far as the merits of the case is concerned.

9. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the stand taken by the State was itself barred by res-judicata, inasmuch as, in the execution case filed arising out of the earlier suit, the State had filed a petition under Order XXI Rule 58 of CPC which was dismissed.

10. He has referred to Section 11 of CPC and has submitted that after dismissal of the petition under Order XXI Rule 58 of CPC, there was no scope for the State to take a stand that the property belonged to the State. This aspect of the matter, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, has not been properly considered. However, during the course of argument, it appeared that the present suit relates to plot no. 866 and the earlier proceeding, in which State had filed petition under Order XXI Rule 58 of CPC, was relating to plot no. 1000.

11. Since the identity of the property is not the same and the parties in the earlier proceeding were also not the same, the plea of res-judicata does not arise and therefore the same does not fall for consideration as a substantial question of law in this case.

12. At this, the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that there is one more question which arise for consideration.

13. He has referred to Exhibit-5 which is the final publication under the Bihar Land Reform