Court ruled that the requirement for intervention under Order 1 Rule 10(2) hinges on whether the intervenors are necessary or proper parties for effective decision-making in the suit.

JUDGMENT

Date : 11-04-2025

The present petition is directed against the order dated 16.03.2016 passed by the learned Sub Judge-III, Ara in Title Suit No. 469 of 2001, whereby and whereunder the application filed by the petitioners and others Order 1 Rule 10(2) r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) for being impleaded as intervenors-defendants in the suit was rejected.

02. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as it appears from the record, are that the respondent no. 1 is the plaintiff before the learned trial court, who has filed a suit seeking declaration for correction in revisional survey khatiyan with regard to suit property having old Khata No. 794, old Khesra No. 2668 (New Khata No. 548, new Khesra No. 3510) area 83 decimal. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that the suit property is the purchased property of two brothers, i.e., the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 and his brother Rajendra Prasad (original defendant no.1) and further for declaration that entry in the revisional survey record especially only in the name of original defendant no. 1 was wrong. Subsequently, in CWJC No. 19776 of 2011 vide order dated 20.01.2014 passed by a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court, the amendment application of the plaintiff was allowed whereby and whereunder the plaintiff sought relief of partition in the suit property. While the suit of the plaintiff has been pending, the petitioners and respondent no. 21, filed an application seeking impleadment and the plaintiff contested their claim by filing a rejoinder. The learned trial court, after hearing the parties, decided the said application against the intervenors vide order dated 16.03.2016. The said order is under challenge before this Court.

03. Learned counsel, Mr. Nagendra Rai, appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable and it has been passed against the facts and the law applicable. Mr. Rai further submitted that the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 has filed the suit for declaration that the revisional survey entry in the name of his brother, Rajendra Prasad, with regard to suit property was wrong, but the said suit property is the joint family property of the petitioners, plaintiff and the defendants. Mr. Rai further submitted that one Nathuni Sah was the common ancestor of the parties and he had six sons, namely (i) Awadh Prasad, (ii) Lakhi Prasad, (iii) Gaya Prasad, (iv) Siyaram Prasad, (v) Rajendra Prasad and (vi) Shailesh Chandra @ Panna Lal. Nathuni Sah died in the year 1955. After death of Nathuni, Lakhi Sah became the Karta and manager of the property and 3-4 years thereafter, only Siyaram Sah got separated from his brothers and other five brothers remained in jointness and Lakhi Sah continued as Karta of the family. Mr. Rai further submitted that Lakhi Sah purchased the suit property from the joint family fund in the name of his younger brothers, plaintiff and Rajendra Prasad on 16.01.1963, but the plaintiff has not made the other members of the joint family as party in the present suit and has brought the suit only against Rajendra Prasad. The said Rajendra Prasad made an averment in Title Suit No. 39/1966/14/1968 that five brothers were joint and this admission during evidence has been made much after the purchase of the property in 1963. Mr. Rai further submitted that relationship between the parties is admitted and it is clear that the intervenors have a direct interest since the plaintiff has been claiming title and partition of the suit property and the court has to decided who is the real owner. Mr. Rai further referred to the decision of this Court reported in Bindeshwari Chaudhary vs Dr. Sheo Nandan Upadhya & Ors., reported in AIR 1973 Pat 347 wherein discussin