Court incorporated the concept of 'proper party', allowing the intervention into an ongoing suit for comprehensive resolution.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 14-10-2025 The present Civil Miscellaneous application has been filed for setting aside the order dated 18.03.2021 (Annexure-5) passed in Title Suit No. 15 of 2018 (CF No. 11 of 2018) by the Court of Sub Judge-1st, Madhubani whereby and whereunder the petition dated 19.04.2019 filed by the intervenors/petitioners for being added as party in the Title Suit No. 15 of 2018 has been rejected by the learned Court below.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Title Suit No. 11 of 2018 has been filed by Umesh Yadav against the State of Bihar and Circle Officer, Rahika, Madhubani for declaration of his title and confirmation of possession over the suit property mentioned in the plaint and other ancillary relief(s). The petitioner filed a petition under Order I Rule 10 for his impleadment in the aforesaid suit on the basis of the fact that suit property has been recorded as ‘Sarv Sadharan’ meaning thereby common people and nature of the land is mentioned as Shamsaan “Cremation place” in Khatiyan (records of right). Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that on the basis of entry made in the said Khatiyan, he has a right and interest over the suit property although he has no exclusive title over that being the resident of the concerned village. It is further submitted that earlier an encroachment case was filed by villagers of the same village against the plaintiff of this case regarding encroachment made on the aforesaid suit property which was decided by the concerned Circle Officer under Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act. That encroachment case was decided in favour of petitioners and against the plaintiff. Subsequently, after passing of final order in said encroachment case, the present Title Suit has been filed by the plaintiff for declaration of title and confirmation of possession over the suit properties. Further, learned counsel submits that he is necessary and proper party in this case and for effective and complete adjudication of this case, his presence is required. To buttress his argument he relied upon the judgment passed in the case of M/S J N Real Estate Vs. Shailendra Pradhan & Ors. reported in 2025 SCC online SC 1015. Para 32 of the judgment reads as under:-

“32. Having regard to the material on record, we are of the view that the High Court should not have interfered with the order passed by the Trial Court impleading the original defendant no. 8 (appellant therein) as one of the defendants in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950. We say so because the genuineness of the transaction, if any, including the genuineness of the documents is to be looked into in the course of the trial. A party who is seeking impleadment may not be a necessary party but still, could be termed as a proper party. There is a fine distinction between a necessary party and a proper party. A necessary party is a person in whose absence no effective decree could be passed at all by the Court. Whereas a proper party is one who though not a necessary party is a person whose presence would enable the Court to effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all matters in dispute in the suit.”

3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that petitioner has no locus and right to participate in the aforesaid suit because he has no right title and interest thereon and plaintiff has full right and title over that and he has got a decree passed under Section 106 of Bihar Tenancy Act by the settlement officer. It is also submitted that revisional survey khatiyan has already been corrected in the name of plaintiff. Learned counsel relied on the judg