IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1223 of 2006 JAI GOVIND SINGH & ORS Versus STATE OF BIHAR &ORS ----------- 2 18.7.2008 Heard Counsel for the petitioners. The grievance of the petitioners against the impugned order impleading the intervener as defendant to the suit filed by the petitioners, in the considered opinion of this Court is absolutely misconceived. The intervener is claiming right to the property as an owner and the petitioners are claiming the property in capacity of trustees. The intervener had filed earlier a title suit bearing Title Suit No. 16/1992 in which these petitioners/trustees have been made defendants. During pendency of the suit or its being dismissed on account of default, an order came to be passed by the Collector for taking over the property in purported exercise of power under Section 87 of the Bihar Tenancy Act. That order has been now separately assailed by the petitioners by filing the present suit bearing Title Suit No. 92/1997. In such circumstances, this Court fails to understand as to how the interest of the intervener can be said to be that of a busy body person. He is claiming to be owner and therefore he has a right to be 2 impleaded in a suit concerning that very property and that very land. In that view of the matter, there is no merit in this Civil Revision Application and the same, being wholly frivolous, is hereby dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)