IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.95 of 2008 --- Jai Ram Mandal son of Late Ram Rup Mandal Resident of Village Raghopur P.S. Naugachia (Parbatta) District Bhagalpur. -- Plaintiff-Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Collector, Bhagalpur. 2. The Mukhiya 3. The Surpanch Both residents of Shankarpur Nanhkar Raghopur Gram Panchayat, P.S.Naugachia (Parbatta), District-Bhagalpur. 4. Kamlesh Kumar Sahu son of Sri Suryaballi Sahu Resident of Village Basantpur Khagra, Tola Parbatta P.S. Naugachia (Parbatta) District-Bhagalpur. -- Defendants-Opposite parties 1st Set. 5. Abdhesh Kumar Sahu son of Late Ram Swarup Sahu 6. Bhawesh Kumar Sahu son of Sri Suryaballi Sahu Both residents of Village Sahu Parbatta, P.S. Naugachia (Parbatta) District- Bhagalpur. Intervenors-defendants- Opposite parties 2nd Set. ----- For the petitioner : Mr. Brajesh Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the opposite parties : None. ---- 03. 05.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the plaintiff- petitioner challenging order dated 05.12.2007 by which learned Subordinate Judge-II, Naugachia (Bhagalpur) allowed intervention application filed by opposite parties no.5 and 6 and added them as party defendants to Title Suit No.37 of 1995. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for declaration of his title and possession over the suit land on the basis of registered document and also for correction of the revisional survey entry in which the suit land was recorded in the name of the - 2 - State of Bihar. In the said suit, the defendants- State of Bihar and its authorities appeared and contested. 4. It transpires that subsequently opposite parties no.5 and 6 filed an application for being added as parties to the suit claiming to be the descendants of Shiv Nath Sahu, who was also admittedly the ancestor of the vendor of the plaintiff and also claiming that the suit property had fallen in their share in partition as the said ancestor Shiv Nath Sahu had constructed a Durga Mandir of which the interveners were Sebaits. 5. Although learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner vehemently opposes the impugned order of the learned court below, but it transpires that the said order is quite legal and proper and the said intervenors are necessary for the full, final and proper adjudication of the dispute raised in the suit. 6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned court below, nor does it find any jurisdictional error therein. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)