IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.654 of 2007 ----------- 1. Yamuna Prasad alias Yamuna Mahto 2. Rajendra Prasad Both sons of late Mahabir Mahto, resident of Muhalla Khandpar, Sheikhpura, P.O. and P.S. Sheikhpura, District Sheikhpura ………Petitioners(intervenors-petitioners) -versus- 1. Surendra Prasad, son of late Mahabir Mahto, resident of Muhalla Khandpar, Sheikhpura, P.O. and P.S. Sheikhpura, District Sheikhpura ………Respondent-Plaintiff-Opposite Party 2. Subhadra Devi, wife of Lakhan Mahto, resident of Muhalla Khandpar, Sheikhpura, P.O. and P.S. Sheikhpura, District Sheikhpura ……..Defendant-appellant-Opp. Party 2nd set. 3. The State of Bihar through the Collector, Sheikhpura, District Sheikhpura. 4. The Executive Engineer, Division Lakhisarai, at P.O. Lakhisarai, District Lakhisarai (then Munger ) 5. The S.D.O., P.W.D., Subdivision Sheikhpura, District Sheikhpura (then Munger ). 6. The Junior Engineer, P.W.D., Sub-Division, Sheikhpura, at P.O. Sheikhpura, District Sheikhpura (then Munger ). ……..Respondents-Opposite Parties 3rd set. --------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate. For the Opp. Party : None. -------- 03/ 16.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the intervenors- petitioners challenging order dated 09.02.2007 , by which the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Fast Track Court-IV, Sheikhpura rejected their intervention application under Order I Rules 1,8, 10(2) and Order XXII Rule 3, read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in Title Appeal No. 09 of 2005. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit No. 38 of 1982, which was filed by one Mahabir Mahto against the State of Bihar for 2 declaration of his title and confirmation of possession as well as for other ancillary reliefs against the State of Bihar and its authorities and settlee Subhadra Devi (opposite party no. 2). 4. During the pendency of the said suit, the sole plaintiff Mahabir Mahto died and his son Surendra Prasad filed an application in the trial court for being substituted as his sole heir and legal representative and in the said application for substitution he specifically stated that the original plaintiff had another wife and from her he had some children but they never had any concern with the suit properties and hence they are not to be substituted. Considering all the said facts, the learned trial court allowed the application for substitution filed by Surendra Prasad (opposite party no.1) and substituted him as the plaintiff vide order dated 30.01.2003 (Annexure 2). 5. It may be noted that another application was filed by the petitioners claiming to be the sons of late Mahabir Mahto from his other wife, but they never pressed the said application in the trial court nor they ever challenged the above mentioned order of the trial court dated 30.01.2003 nor even challenged the final judgment and decree of the trial court. 6. The said suit was heard in full and after considering the pleadings and evidence of the parties was decreed by the learned trial court. 7. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court., the said defendant opposite party no.2 Subhadra Devi 3 filed Title Appeal No. 09 of 2005, which is pending before the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Fast Track Court-IV, Sheikhpura. 8. It transpires that during the pendency of the said title appeal, the intervenors-petitioners filed an application for being added as parties to the title appeal. This application was contested by respondent no.1-opposite party no.1 Surendra Prasad. 9. The learned court below after considering the entire matter in detail came to the conclusion that the petitioners had neither pressed their application for being substituted in the trial court nor ever challenged order dated 30.01.2003 passed by the trial court nor ever took any step when the suit was decreed in favour of opposite party no.1 Surendra Prasad and hence at this stage there was no occasion for impleading the petitioners as parties to the title appeal. 10. 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 MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J.)