IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1280 of 2006 KARTIK KUMAR GHOSH Versus SHRI KUSESHWAR PRASAD SINGH & ORS ----------- 4. 10.11.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. It is really unfortunate that a judicial order is being recorded in the form of the impugned order in a telegraphic manner. An application was filed before the court below seeking intervention in a suit for specific performance. Such prayer was opposed by the petitioner, the plaintiff in the suit, and also in a way supported by the original defendant. The case of both the petitioner and the original defendant was that three proposed interveners in fact claiming their title in the suit property through some Power of Attorney were not entitled to say so because as a matter of fact the original defendant had never executed any Power of Attorney. This Court is not concerned as to what is the true state of affair and as to whether the defendant had or had not executed Power of Attorney but when there was definitely an opposition to such prayer 2 of the three interveners being added as defendant to the suit, the Court below was required to consider the same and pass a reasoned order. Unfortunately the court below has not taken into account any of these facts nor has it spelt out the reasons for impleadment of three interveners. The manner in which cuttings has been done and operative portion of impugned order has been sought to be changed by the Court below, also lends support to its mechanical approach, if not a foul play while passing the impugned order. Under such circumstances, this Court would set aside the impugned order and direct the court below to re-examine the application filed by the three interveners for impleadment of party strictly in accordance with law. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/