1. Heard learned counsel for both the parties.

2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 08.09.2017 passed by learned Munsif, West Muzaffarpur in Title Suit No. 14 of 2015 whereby and whereunder the learned Munsif allowed the application of intervenor respondent No. 1 as defendant 2nd party.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are plaintiffs before the learned trial court and has filed a suit for confirmation of possession over the Schedule 1 land of the plaint and also sought permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the Schedule I land of the plaint, situated in village Purushottampur, P.S. Kurahni at present Maniari, Dist. Muzaffarpur, C.S. Khata No. - 183, C.S. Plot No. 1041, R.S. Khata No. 598, R.S. Plot No. 2255 and 2256, Area - 22 decimal each.

4. Learned counsel further submits that the suit has been filed against State of Bihar as the employees of State of Bihar threatened to interfere with the peaceful possession of petitioners over Schedule I land of the plaint. Learned counsel further submits that the suit land is the purchased land of the plaintiffs as father of the plaintiffs purchased the said land on 09.08.1955 and 10.02.1956 by way of registered sale deeds. Learned counsel further submits that in Revisional Survey Khatiyan, the suit land as described in Schedule 1 land of the plaint, was wrongly and fraudulently recorded in the name of "Bihar Sarkar". During pendency of this suit and when the evidence of the parties have been recorded, at the stage of argument, the respondent no. 1 filed an application dated 21.07.2017 seeking impleadment in the suit as defendant. The respondent no. 1 claimed that the suit land was acquired by the intervenor / respondent from the ex - landlord through settlement much before the Revisional Survey and she has been coming into its peaceful possession but in Revisional Survey the disputed land was wrongly and illegally recorded in the name of State of Bihar. The intervenor / respondent further submitted that she filed a petition before the Consolidation Officer, Kudhani under S.10(2) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act and the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 28.12.1978 directed for recording the name of the respondent no. 1 in the Kaifiyat Column as Bakabjedar. Learned counsel further submits that however the learned trial court did not consider for a moment that the plaintiffs have sought no relief against the respondent no. 1 and an effective decree can always be passed even in absence of intervenorrespondent. Even the claim of the intervenor - respondent no. 1, which is based on a forged document, is palpably bogus since document was a torn receipt which was unclear and did not show anything in favour of the intervenor / respondent. However, the Consolidation Officer asked for land survey report from Amin as the State of Bihar was unrepresented before it. From the said report of Amin, the Consolidation Officer held that the intervenor / respondent was in possession over the suit land of Plot No. 2255 and 2256 but the Amin report was collusive and the intervenor / respondent never came into possession of the suit land. No documents have been filed by the intervenor / respondent worth its name in support of her claim and the State has also been helping the intervenor in frustrating the claim of the plaintiffs / petitioners.

5. Learned counsel referred to the decision of Ram Lochan Sharan v. Sri Balmukund Yadav reported in 2006 (4) PLJR 65 wherein learned Single Judge of this Court held that the plaintiff is master of his own litigation and intervenor cannot dictate or lay down the terms of litigation.
Learned counsel further referred to the case of Kauleshwai Devi alias Kauleshwari Gowalin v. State of Bihar and Others, reported in 2014 (3) PLJR 10 wherein the learned Single Judge held that plaintiff being dominus litis ma