IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2136 of 2006 MAHANTH MAHADEO GIRI & ORS Versus MAHANTH RAMJI UPADHYAY @ MAHANTH RAMJI GIRI ----------- 2. 27.11.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioners. In the opinion of this Court the approach of the court below in rejecting the prayer of the petitioners for being impleaded as a party in an eviction suit does not suffer from any jurisdictional error. That is so because the suit is one for eviction brought by the plaintiff against the alleged tenant, the defendant. Whether such plaintiff is the landlord or not or whether such relationship of landlord and tenant is shared between the parties to the suit or not cannot be and should not be the headache of a third person including the petitioners. As and when the right of the petitioners would be affected, in relation to the suit property, the petitioners will definitely have a right to resist any claim which may be putforward on the basis of the alleged decree on the ground that they were not a party to the suit. The apprehension expressed by the counsel for the petitioners that there are 2 two suits pending with regard to the right and succession to the office of Mahanth which in some way would be material for the purposes of even disposal of the eviction suit and therefore, any judgment in the eviction suit would be having evidentiary value causing prejudice to the petitioners is to be only noted for its being rejected. It is well settled that a judgment of eviction suit cannot decide the question of title even between the parties much less against the petitioners who were not a party to such eviction suit. Consequently the petitioners can never be bound by anything said in the aforementioned judgment and decree in the eviction suit. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and is hereby dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/