IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1562 of 2008 BINDU DEVI Versus SMT.SHARDA DEVI & ORS ----------- 3. 24.9.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. While this Court would not find any error in the impugned order, refusing impleadment of the petitioner as a defendant to the suit, the submission of the learned counsel is that invoking the principles of natural justice would require reconsideration of the matter. The admitted fact is that when the suit was filed in the year 2000 the original defendant no.2 for whatever reasons may be, refused to contest the suit and as such, she was debarred from filing the written statement. Such order dated 20.1.2005 in fact acquired finality when C.R.No. 1204/2005 was dismissed by this Court by an order dated 31.1.2008. It is only after during the pendency of C.R.No. 1204/2005 that the petitioner is said to have purchased the property by a sale deed dated 22.3.2006 and surprisingly this fact was not brought to the notice of this Court either by the original defendant no.2 or by the 2 petitioner. In that view of the matter, when the court below had found that actually the petitioner was walking in the shoe of the defendant no.2 who already stood debarred by an order dated 20.1.2005, also affirmed by the dismissal of C.R.No. 1204/2005 under an order of this court below its approach of not impleading the petitioner as a defendant to the suit cannot be faulted either on fact or in law. Mr. Nagendra Rai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however, would submit that as the petitioner has got the property and would be definitely governed by the principles of lis pendence, the interest of justice would be better served if the petitioner is allowed to contest the suit by compensating the plaintiff for the loss sustained by her in a protracted course of this Court. He would submit that any reasonable amount that may be fixed by this Court will be borne by the petitioner but at least he should be allowed to defend his property by contesting the suit in an effective manner. Considering the aforementioned 3 prayer as also the law in this regard settled by the Apex Court in the case of Savitri Devi vs. District Judge, Gorakhpur & ors., reported in AIR 1999 S.C. 976, and in the case of Amit Kumar Shaw & anor. Vs. Farida Khatoon & anor., reported in AIR 2005 S.C. 2209, this Court would direct for impleadment of the petitioner as a defendant to the suit on a condition that for each and every day from the day defendant no.2 had appeared in the suit and upto this day he will pay a cost of Rs. 200/- per day to the plaintiff. Such amount will be fixed by the court and upon making payment of such amount the petitioner may be allowed to be impleaded as a party and contest the suit after filing of the written statement. With the aforementioned observation, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/