IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.631 of 2022

======================================================

1.

Sushila Kumari @ Sushila Devi Daughter of Late Kapil Dev Sharma, Wife

of Lallan Rai Resident of Ward No. 4, Kailashpuri Nayi Bazaar, P.S.- Buxar

Nagar, District- Buxar.

2.

Lallan Rai Son of Muneshwar Rai Resident of Ward No. 4, Kailashpuri Nayi

Bazaar, P.S.- Buxar Nagar, District- Buxar.

3.

Bajnath Rai @ Bhulai Rai Son of Kapil Dev Sharma Resident of Ward No.

4, Kailashpuri Nayi Bazaar, P.S.- Buxar Nagar, District- Buxar.

4.

Manoj Kumar Rai Son of Kapil Dev Sharma Resident of Ward No. 4,

Kailashpuri Nayi Bazaar, P.S.- Buxar Nagar, District- Buxar.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

Ramashray Singh Son of Peshran Bachu Singh Resident of Village-

Sujatpur, P.S.- Gansoi, District- Buxar.

2.

Sidhnath Singh Son of Peshran Bachu Singh Resident of Village- Sujatpur,

P.S.- Gansoi, District- Buxar.

3.

Ashok Kumar Singh Son of Peshran Bachu Singh Resident of Village-

Sujatpur, P.S.- Gansoi, District- Buxar.

4.

Rajnikanth Singh Son of Peshran Bachu Singh Resident of Village- Sujatpur,

P.S.- Gansoi, District- Buxar.

5.

Markanday Thakur Son of Shree Niwas Thakur Resident of Village-

Kodaria, P.S.- Dinara, District- Rohtas.

6.

Bimal Kumar Kejriwal Son of Peshran Radhyashyam Kejriwal Resident of

Mohalla- Buxar Kothwali Chabutra, P.S.- Buxar Nagar, District- Buxar.

7.

Nirmal Kumar Kejriwal Son of Peshran Radhyashyam Kejriwal Resident of

Mohalla- Buxar Kothwali Chabutra, P.S.- Buxar Nagar, District- Buxar.

8.

Manish Kumar Kejriwal Son of Peshran Radhyashyam Kejriwal Resident of

Mohalla- Buxar Kothwali Chabutra, P.S.- Buxar Nagar, District- Buxar.

... ... Respondent/s

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s

:

Mr. Dinu Kumar, Advocate

Ms. Ritika Rani, Advocate.

For the Respondent/s

:

Mr.

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA

ORAL ORDER

2

24-11-2022

Heard Ms. Ritika Rani, learned counsel for the

petitioners.

The grievance of the petitioners is against the order

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.631 of 2022(2) dt.24-11-2022

2/3

dated 16.7.2022 by which the petition filed by the petitioners for

their impleadment as defendants in the suit has been rejected.

Mr. Dinu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners

submits that the suit for specific performance was filed by the

plaintiffs against the defendants for a decree of specific

performance but in the description of the suit property, the

plaintiff has wrongly mentioned the western boundary i.e.

instead of common passage (Aam rasta) petitioners are shown

in the western boundary with an intention to grab the common

passage (Aam rasta).

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and

have gone through the impugned order. It appears that the

learned Trial Court has come to the conclusion that presence of

the petitioners are not required in the suit in order to adjudicate

the issue completely and effectually. I fully agree with the

finding arrived at by the learned Trial Court inasmuch as

admittedly the grievance of the petitioners that the plaintiff is

trying to grab the common passage (Aam rasta) by giving the

wrong boundary of the suit property, which in my opinion, gives

rise to a separate cause of action to the petitioners. The plaintiff

being a dominus litis has a right to choose the defendants

against whom he wants to contest the suit and nobody can be

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.631 of 2022(2) dt.24-11-2022

3/3

impleaded against the will of the plaintiffs. Admittedly, the suit

is for specific performance and if the petitioners have grievance,

they are free to file a separate suit claiming their right on Aam

rasta (common passage).

In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order does not

require any interference by this Cou