IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10400 of 2010 KAUSHAL PANDAY S/O LATE RATANDEO PANDAY R/O VILL.- SAHULI, P.S. HUSSAINGANJ, DISTT.- SIWAN, AT PRESENT R/O BANGLOR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE REGISTRAR, CIVIL COURT, SIWAN 3. HARIKESH PANDAY 4. GIRIJ PANDAY 5. BIRESH PANDAY Sl. NO. 3 to 5 ARE SONS OF LATE GOPI NATH PANDAY 6. RAJ RANI DEVI D/O LATE GOPI NATH PANDAY 7. MOST. PRABHAWATI DEVI W/O LATE GOPI NATH PANDAY 8. PRASHANT KUMAR 9. PANKAJ 10. AMIT KUMAR 11. SUKHANT KUMAR 12. AMIN ALL 8 to 12 ARE SONS OF LATE KESHAW PANDAY 13. ANUSHARI D/O LATE KESHAV PANDAY 14. INDU DEVI W/O LATE UMESH KUMAR PANDAY 15. ASHUTOSH NANDAN MINOR D/O LATE UMESH PANDAY, UNDER THE GUARDIANSHIP OF HER MOTHER INDUI DEVI 16. SAUMAYA KUMARI MINOR D/O LATE UMESH PANDAY, UNDER THE GUARDIANSHIP OF HER MOTHER INDUI DEVI 17. SUBHDRA DEVI W/O SHRI VIJAY KUMAR OJHA, 18. SHILA DEVI W/O UMESH KUMAR PANDAY, BOTH ARE D/O LATE KASHI NATH PANDAY ALL 3 TO 18 ARE R/O SAHULI, PARGANA-BARA, PS- HUSSAINGANJ, PO-SHAHULI, DISTRICT-SIWAN. 19. RAM NATH PANDAY S/O BACHA PANDAY R/O SAHULI PARGANA- BARA, P.S. HUSSAINGANJ, P.O. SHAHULI, DISTT.- SIWAN ……………Plaintiffs/respondents IInd Set. 20. BINDA DEVI W/O BIPIN PANDAY R/O VILL.- RUIYA BANGARA, P.O. + P.S.- SIHAUTA, DISTT.- SIWAN 21. INDU W/O LATE LAKSHMAN PANDAY R/O VILLAGE + P.O.- RAJPUR, P.S.- RAGHUNATHPUR, DISTT.- SIWAN 22. USHA DEVI W/O RAJESH DUBEY, 23. DINESH PANDAY 24. VINOD PANDAY ALL 22 TO 24 ARE SONS AND DAUGHTER OF LATE PANCHDEO PANDAY 25. MADAN PANDAY 26. MANAN PANDAY ALL 25 TO 26 ARE S/O RANGILA PANDAY 27. REVATI RAMAN PANDAY 28. VIMALA PANDAY 2 ALL 27 TO 28 ARE S/O DUDH NATH PANDAY, ALL 22 TO 28 ARE R/O VILL.- SAHULI, PARGANA BARA, P.S. HUSSAINGANJ, DISTT.- SIWAN 29. LAL BABU SINGH S/O BABAN SINGH R/O HUDHERA, PARGANA BARA, P.S. HUSSAINGANJ, DISTT.- SIWAN, AT PRESENT R/O VILL.- PURANI BAZAR, P.S. SIWAN MUFFASIL, DISTT.- SIWAN 30. HIRA PRASAD JAIN S/O DHANINDRA PRASAD R/O PURANI BAZAR, SIWAN P.O. + P.S.- SIWAN, DISTT.- SIWAN 31. KALIP DEO PANDAY S/O LATE RAMAN PANDAY R/O VILLAGE + P.O. SAHULI, P.S. HUSSAINGANJ, DISTT.- SIWAN 32. CHANNDRADEO PANDAY S/O LATE RANGILA PANDAY R/O SAHULI, P.O. SAHULI, P.S. HUSSAINGANJ, DISTT.- SIWAN …………Defendants/respondents IIIrd Set. For the petitioner : Mr. Chandrakant, Advocate. For the State : Mr. N.K.Sinha, A.A.G.-19. ----------- 3 24-08-2010 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging order dated 08-04-2010 by which Subordinate Judge-V, Siwan rejected his intervention petition for impleading him as a party defendant to T.S. No. 296 of 1984. 3. The said suit was filed by the respondents 2nd set against respondents 3rd set for declaration of title and confirmation of possession as well as injunction and other ancillary reliefs. 4. The said suit has been pending since 1984 and only on 13-08-2009 the petitioner filed intervention application in the suit claiming that he was related to the defendants and was a necessary party and there had been a tripple murder in the family due to which the defendants are not appearing. 5. This cannot be a ground for impleadment of any 3 person as a defendant in a suit, specially when the plaintiff had specifically stated that the interveners had no concern with the suit property and hence he was not necessary to be impleaded as a party to the suit. It may be noted that plaintiff is the dominus litus and it is he who has to choose the contestant in the suit and if there is non-joinder of any necessary party the suit may be dismissed on the ground of non-impleadment of necessary party, but the intervener in such circumstances cannot be legally allowed to forcibly enter the suit. 6. The learned court below has considered the matter in detail and from perusal of the impugned order it appears that he has decided the matter legally without committing any jurisdictional error. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be permitted to file a fresh suit with respect to his title over the suit property. It goes without saying that the petitioner has a right to file a suit which has to be decided on its own merit in accordance with law. 8. This court does not find any merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. Sujit (S.N. Hussain,J)