IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13398 of 2010 1. LALLAN SINGH S/O RAGHUNATH SINGH R/O VILL TENDUNI, P.S.BIKRAMGANJ, DISTT-ROHTAS Versus 1. RAGHUNATH SINGH S/O LATE KANHAIYA SINGH R/O VILL TENDUNI, P.S.BIKRAMGANJ, DISTT-ROHTAS 2. BABAN SINGH WRONGLY CLAMING TO THE SON OF RAGHUNATH SINGH R/O VILL TENDUNI, P.S.BIKRAMGANJ, DISTT-ROHTAS ----------- 3. 10.02.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the Respondent no. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 10.9.2009 passed by Munsif, Bikramganj in Title Suit No. 69 of 2007 by which the application of Respondent no. 2 under Order I Rule 10 has been allowed and he has been permitted to be adder as defendant in the suit. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining Respondent no. 1 from disposing of the suit property. The sale deeds which the Respondent no. 2 produced before the court below were in the name of Respondent no. 1 alone and that the name of Respondent no. 2 does not figure in the same. Learned Counsel for Respondent no. 2 points out that Respondent no. 1 is the father and the petitioner & Respondent no. 2 both are brothers. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and that merely impleadment of Respondent no. 2 shall not non-suit the petitioner when otherwise Respondent no. 2 has to substantiate his claims during trial, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order. This application is dismissed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)