IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.19 of 2008 ---- Rahimuddin Mian S/o Lukman Mian, Resident of Village- Banda, P.S.-Baikunthpur, Pargana-Narhal, P.O.- Usari, District-Gopalganj. -- Defendant-Petitioner. Versus 1. Usman Mian, S/o Nawal Mian, resident of Village-Banada, P.S.Baikunthpur, Pargana- Narhal, P.S. Usari, District-Gopalganj. -- Plaintiff- Opposite party. 2. Kitabuddin Mian, S/o Sahebjan Mian, 3. Quamuddin Mian S/o Sahebjan Mian Both R/o Village-Kitpura, Bangara, Tola Pansala, P.O. Paijallahpur, P.S. Baikunthpur, District-Gopalganj. -- Intervenor-Opposite Parties. ---- For the petitioner : Mr. Basant Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the opposite party : None. ---- 02. 27.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the defendant- petitioner challenging order dated 08.11.2007 by which the learned Subordinate Judge-III, Gopalganj allowed the application of opposite parties no.2 and 3 under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for being impleaded in Title Suit No.315 of 1998. 3. The aforesaid Title Suit was filed by the sole plaintiff-opposite party no.1 against the sole defendant-petitioner for partition of the suit properties claiming it to be their ancestral properties. In the said suit, the defendant-petitioner appeared and did not specifically deny the said claim of the plaintiff and the suit proceeded. 4. It transpires that on 14.12.2005 an application was filed on behalf of the intervenors-opposite parties no.2 and 3 under - 2 - the provision of Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for being added as parties to the suit stating that plaintiff and defendant was their maternal uncle and cousin and the suit was filed to grab the share of the mother of the applicants after whose death the applicants had inherited the same, but neither the applicants, nor their mother were ever impleaded in the suit. 5. The plaintiff and defendant vehemently opposed the contentions of the applicants claiming that the mother of the applicants did not belong to their family and hence the applicants were not necessary parties for the suit. However, the learned court below after considering the matter in detail found that it was necessary in the ends of justice and also to come to the real matter in controversy the addition of the applicants were necessary and hence he allowed the said application vide its order dated 12.01.2007 which is under challenge in the instant civil revision. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)