IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.759 of 2007 1. BINOD KUMAR CHOUDHARY. 2. BAGGO CHOUDHARY. 3. LAGOO CHOUDHARY. ALL SONS OF LATE RAMSWAROOP CHOUDHARY. 4. MANI LAL CHOUDHARY. 5. NAWAL KISHORE CHOUDHARY. SONS OF LATE KHAJANCHI CHOUDHARY. 6. SURESH CHOUDHARY. 7. NARESH CHOUDHARY. 8. MAHESH CHOUDHARY. 9. RAMESH CHOUDHARY. SONS OF LATE RAM CHARITRA CHOUDHARY. 10. LALAN CHOUDHARY. 11. BABAN CHOUDHARY. 12. MITHILESH CHOUDHARY. SONS OF LATE LAXMI CHOUDHARY. 13. KRISHNADEO CHOUDHARY, SON OF LATE JANTRI CHOUDHARY. ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE AKBARNAGAR (TOLA SHREERAMPUR), P.O. AND P.S. AKBARNAGAR, DISTRICT- BHAGALPUR……………………....(PLAINTIFFS). …………………………………………………….PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE COLLECTOR, BHAGALPUR, DISTRICT-BHAGALPUR. 2. JAGDISH MAHTO, SON OF LATE MOLU MAHTO. RESIDENT OF AKBARNAGAR, P.O. AND P.S. AKBARNAGAR, DISTRICT-BHAGALPUR………………………..(DEFENDANTS). ……………………………………..OPPOSITE PARTIES 1ST SET. 3. SIYARAM MAHTO @ GOPE @ YADAV. 4. CHANDRIKA MAHTO @ GOPE @ YADAV. BOTH O.P. NOS.3 AND 4, SONS OF LATE CHHEDI MAHTO, RESIDENT OF SRIRAMPUR, P.O. AND P.S. SULTANGANJ, DISTRICT BHAGALPUR, PRESENTLY RESIDENT OF AKBARNAGAR, P.O. AND P.S. AKBARNAGAR, DISTRICT- BHAGALPUR……………………(INTERVENOR/DEFENDANT). ………………………………….OPPOSITE PARTIES 2ND SET. ………………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- 2. 27.11.2009. Heard Mr. Krishna Mohan, learned counsel for the 2 petitioner and Mr. Binay Kumar Bineet, learned counsel for O.P. No.3. The petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 7.2.2007 passed in Title Suit No.24 of 2005, whereby the Sub Judge-IV, Bhagalpur, has allowed the prayer of the Opposite Party Nos.3 and 4 for their impleadment as defendants in the suit. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the land bearing Khata No.539, Khesra No.1835 was standing in the name of one Choudhary Gope in the cadastral survey of khatiyan but that Choudhary Gope died issuless and thereafter the whole land came into the khas possession of the intermediary concerned , who in 1941 had settled the land in favour of the ancestors of the plaintiff Sonu Choudhary and, thereafter, they are coming in possession over the said land, however, certain portion of land has been recorded in the name of the State of Bihar and another person. It is stated that the Opposite Party Nos.3 and 4 have no concern with the land and, therefore, they ought not to have been impleaded as party- defendants. Learned counsel for Opposite Party No.3, on the other hand, stated that defendants no. 3 and 4 are the 3 descendants of the brother of Choudhary Gope, who died issueless and, thus, upon inheriting interest of Choudhary Gope, they are necessary party for defending a suit and also for avoiding multiplicity of the proceedings. The court concerned after hearing the rival submissions of the parties came to the conclusion that there is sufficient reason to implead the Opposite Party Nos.3 and 4 as necessary/proper party and, thus, has allowed their prayer. I do not find any jurisdiction error in the impugned order dated 7.2.2007. Thus, this Civil Revision is, accordingly, dismissed. P.S. (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)