IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16890 of 2011 Sri Ramanand Mahto Versus Sri Krishna Mahto & Ors ---------------------------------- 11. 25.11.2011 Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. By the impugned order dated 01.04.2008 passed in Partition Suit No.37 of 1993, the Munsif, Patna City allowed the application filed by the interveners-respondents under Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C. for being added as party-defendant. The plaintiff is not challenging the said order. The defendant has filed this writ application challenging the order. Admittedly, the interveners are purchasers of the part of the suit property which they have purchased through sale deed dated 01.07.2003. The partition suit is of the year 1993. It is settled principles of law as has been held by the Apex Court in A.I.R. 2005 Supreme Court 2209 and also (2010)7 SCC 417 that the purchasers during the pendency of the suit may be added as party in the proceeding although, it is not the obligation of the plaintiff to file application for their impleadment. According to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the provision under Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C. speaks about the discretionary jurisdiction of the Court and no party may claim or insist the Court for being impleaded as party in 2 the case. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, the learned Court below has rightly exercised the jurisdiction vested in it by law. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. Saurabh (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)