IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.614 of 2009 1. SANTOSH TIWARI, S/O LATE DHARAMNATH TIWARI 2. CHHOTELAL TIWARI, S/O LATE BASAWAN TIWARI, BOTH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-MADHWAPUR, POST- SURBALA, P.S.-GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR, TARWARA, DISTRICT-SIWAN. …………INTERVENOR/PETITIONER. Versus 1. BRIJ KISHORE TIWARI 2. NARAD TIWARI 3. SURESH TIWARI 4. AKHILESHWAR TIWARI 5. VISHWAMITRA TIWARI 6. DILIP TIWARI 7. MANOJ TIWARI 8. ASHOK TIWARI 9. NAWAL TIWARI, ALL SONS OF NATHUNI TIWARI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-MADHWAPUR, PRAGANA BARA, POST-SURWALA, P.S.-GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR, TARWARA, DISTRICT-SIWAN. ………PLAINTIFFS/OPP. PARTY 1ST SET. 10. MANAGER TIWARI 11. JITAN TIWARI, S/O PRATAP TIWARI 12. VIKARAMA TIWARI, S/O BANGALI TIWARI 13. AWADH KISHORE TIWARI, S/O BANGALI TIWARI 14. KRISHNA TIWARI, S/O FAUJDAR TIWARI 15. SRI RAM TIWARI, S/O FAUJDAR TIWARI 16. ANARKALI DEVI, D/O FAUJDAR TIWARI 17. FULKANTI DEVI, D/O FAUJDAR TIWARI 18. SUNDARWASINI DEVI, D/O FAUJDAR TIWARI 19. JAGDISH TIWARI, S/O SITARAM TIWARI 20. JAI SHANKAR TIWARI, S/O SITARAM TIWARI 21. NATHUNI TIWARI, S/O MATHURA TIWARI, ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-MADHWAPUR, PRAGANA BARA, POST-SURWALA, P.S.-GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR, TARWARA, DISTRICT-SIWAN. ……………DEFENDANTS/OPP. PARTIES 2ND SET. --- -------- 2 23.04.2009 This revision application has been filed by the petitioners against order dated 5.12.2008 passed by the Munsif-Ist, Siwan in Title Suit No. 17 of 2004 by which the petition of this petitioner for being added as a party in the suit has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the plaintiff has filed partition suit with regard to plot no. 385 and with the 2 connivance of the defendant suit may be compromised resulting into a decree in his favour. He submits that in fact the suit land is a Gairmajarua Malikan land and this petitioner has the right of easement of the same. Therefore, he intended to intervene in the matter. In case of partition between co- parceners of a joint family there is no scope for intervention by any stranger in the same. Therefore, if the petitioner has any grievance with regard to his right of easement in the property then either he may file separate suit for that or may move the State Government to intervene in the matter and protect his rights. So far as impugned order is concerned, this Court does not find any error in the same and, therefore, does not find any merit in the revision application. With above observations, this revision application is disposed of. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)