IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.534 of 2008 RAM SEWAK PODDAR Versus ANIRBAN SUR & ANR ----------- 03/ 14.05.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This civil revision is being heard at this stage at the instance of the petitioner. This Civil Revision has been filed by the intervenor- petitioner challenging order dated 05.01.2008, by which the learned Munsif, Sadar Purnea rejected his petition for being added as an intervenor in Title Suit No. 844 of 1992. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiffs for declaration of their occupancy right, title and interest over plots no.936 and 943, which were part of cadastral survey plots no. 558, 560 and 561. The aforesaid suit was filed in the year 1992 and on 30.03.2007 the petitioner filed a petition in the suit for being added as a party claiming that he had been impleaded as defendant by the plaintiffs in Title Suit No.581 of 1992 . The learned court below has considered the matter in detail and has found that earlier Title Suit No. 581 of 1992 was filed by the plaintiffs against the intervenor challenging survey entry with regard to plots no.928/1419 and plot no. 936/1420 of M.S. Khata no.607, whereas, the instant suit, namely, Title Suit No.844 of 1992 was filed by the plaintiffs against the State of Bihar only with respect to M.S. Plots no.936 and 943 of M.S. Khata no.809 challenging the entry of municipal survey record of right prepared in the name of the State of Bihar. Learned court below has specifically found that M.S. Plots no. 2 936 and 943 of M.S. Khata no.809 are the subject matter of the instant suit and there is no document to support the petitioner’s plea and the present suit will not in any way prejudice the intervenor. The principle is well-settled that if a decree is passed, the right of any person other than the parties to the suit or the persons stepping in their shoes will not be prejudiced and they have full liberty to take recourse to any other step in any forum available to them if they have valid materials to support their claim. In the said circumstances, the learned court below has found that there is no substance in the intervention petition filed by the petitioner and that similar petition of another intervenor had already been rejected. In the said facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below and, accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. MPS/ (S. N. Hussain, J. )