IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.416 of 2008 RAGHUNATH MAHTO & ORS Versus VISHWANATH MAHTO & ORS ----------- 3 5.1.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioners. In the opinion of this Court, when the owner of the land, who has a vital interest to the suit property, has already been made party and contesting the proceedings, the presence of the petitioner by way of supplement to help the State and/or its functionary was not required. That being so, if the court below has come to a conclusion that the petitioners are neither necessary party nor proper party to the suit, this Court cannot interfere with its such conclusion and the eventual discretion exercised strictly in terms of order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The apprehension of the petitioners that at some stage or the other the State or its functionary may loose its interest and allow the plaintiff-opposite parties to have a free access to the land by getting a walk over in the contest, is also misconceived but then as the petitioners only seek to bolster the public interest in the gairmazurwa aam land, they will have a liberty to approach the Collector of the district as and when they would find that the agency of the State is not properly conducting the proceedings of the suit. With the aforementioned observations, this application is dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)