IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2027 of 2008 BIR BAHADUR RAJBHAR & ANR Versus BAIJNATH SINGH YADAV@BAIJNATH SINGH & ORS ----------- 2 3/12/2008 Heard counsel for the petitioners. In the opinion of this Court there was no reason for the court below to review its earlier order as contained in Annexure-1 to this Civil Revision Application. Earlier also when the petitioner had filed an application for being impleaded in a suit pertaining to Specific Performance of Contract, the same was rejected by order dated 22.2.2005 holding that in a suit involving the issue of enforcement of an agreement for sale in question between Tulsi Prasad Saraf and the plaintiff Baijnath Singh Yadav, the petitioners were neither necessary nor proper party. The claim of the petitioners for their being impleaded in the suit was also gone into at a great length and the court below having been found that the right of the petitioners, if any, emanating from the sale deed executed in their favour, during pendency of the suit by son of Tulsi Prasad Saraf, was wholly 2 insufficient for their being added as a party to the suit. That order dated 22.2.2005 between the parties became final, which was also not interfered by the Court below on a review sought for by the petitioners. This Court also does not find that there was any such error apparent on the face of records in the aforesaid order dated 22.2.2005 which could have been reviewed by the court below. That being so, this Court would not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order which to say the least is not vitiated by any jurisdictional error. Apprehension of counsel for the petitioners that the right which has accrued in favour of the petitioners by virtue of the sale deed in respect of the land in question would be taken away in the suit in hand is also wholly misconceived. Since the petitioners are not party to the suit, they would not be bound by resultant decree. This Court infact would also not find force in the submissions of the counsel for the 3 petitioners that the doctrine of lis- pendence would make them necessary party specially when the plaintiff while seeking relief of enforcement of agreement for sale in their suit for specific performance have sought no relief against the petitioners. That being so, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly this application is dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) Abhay Kumar