IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9634 of 2011 UMESH NANDAN PRASAD SINGH Versus SMT.DILRANI DEVI & ANR ----------- 2. 23.06.2011 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This writ application has been filed against the order dated 29.11.2010 passed by the learned Munsif - 1st, Munger in Eviction Suit No. 4 of 2005 whereby the learned court below rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 C.P.C. for being added as co-plaintiff in the Eviction Suit. It appears that the mother of the petitioner is the plaintiff in the Eviction Suit No. 4 of 2005. She filed Eviction Suit against the respondent No.2 on the ground of personal necessity. The petitioner is the eldest son of the plaintiff. He filed the application for being added as party in the suit on the ground that proper pairvy is not being done by his mother who is plaintiff in the suit. From perusal of the impugned order 2 it appears that the learned court below found that the plaintiff is doing pairvy continuously in the suit and she has also been examined as PW-1 in the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner in course of hearing of the writ application admitted the fact that the plaintiff is objecting the addition of the petitioner as co-plaintiff with her. Moreover, this is a suit for eviction of the tenant and the question is, whether there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the tenant. In such circumstances, the petitioner is not at all a necessary party and therefore, the learned court below has rightly, in exercise of his power, passed the impugned order. Accordingly, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Thus, this writ application is dismissed. S.S. (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)