1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1551 of 2007 RAJ KUMAR KESHRI Versus MD.SHARIF & ORS ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Bipin Bihari Sinha,Advocate. For the Opp.parties: Mr. Devendra Kumar Sinha, Sr.Advocate. Mr. Abhiraj Raj, Advocate. ----- 3 25/7/2008 Heard counsel for the parties. Here is the case where the petitioner had sought to intervene in a suit on the ground that he had a defined interest in this suit property which was a property of Hindu Religious Trust and he being a member of the Trust Committee constituted by the Bihar State Hindu Religious Trust Board herinafter referred to as the Board, had a right to safeguard the interest of the Board. Such an application was however filed the petitioner in the year 2007 when admittedly he was no longer member of the trust committee, in view of the fact that he had already been removed from such onerous duty by a notification of the Board way back in the month of January, 2006 which has been assailed by him in a writ application. The petitioner, therefore, was thus duty bound to state the facts correctly in his application seeking impleadment but he chose to suppress them and had filed his application on misleading facts by pretending that he had still been continuing to be a member of the Trust Committee. It is thus clear that the petitioner had sought to dupe the Court in his bid to establish that he was a necessary party by virtue of being a member of Trust Committee, which he was not, on the date of 2 filing his application in question before the Court below seeking his impleadment as a defendant to the suit. That apart, the court below has rejected his petition by the impugned order upon perusing the averments in the plaint which went to show that it was out and out a suit of eviction on the ground of personal necessity and did not permit any intervention of the petitioner for adjudicating the issue of title of suit property. In that view of the matter, if the court below had come to a finding that the petitioner was not the necessary party as no issue of title was involved in the said eviction suit, this Court would not find any error in the impugned order specially when the Board itself has no grievance with such an order. It is thus clear that the petitioner was/is more concerned of his individual right. Consequently, this civil revision application is wholly malafide and misconceived and the same must be dismissed. In view of the fact that the petitioner had tried to misuse process of the Court by projecting himself as a member of the Trust Committee on the strength of a superceded notification of the Board, this Court while dismissing this civil revision application would impose a cost of Rs. 5,000/- against him, which must be realized by the Court below within a period of three months from the petitioner. ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J. ) Abhay Kumar 3