IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.741 of 2007 SHIV MUNI MAHTO Versus KAILASH MAHTO & ORS ----------- 2 31.7.2008 Heard Counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, the impugned order dated 15.2.2007 passed by the Court below refusing to implead the petitioner as a party defendant to the suit cannot be said to be vitiated by any material irregularity or jurisdictional error. This is so because the Court below has found that the suit has been brought in respect of plot no. 330 vide Schedule- C to the plaint and the plaintiff does not claim entire area of plot no. 330 but for only 14 decimals out of 23 decimals of plot no.330 which, according to the plaintiff, belongs to the defendants namely defendant nos. 1 to 8. The grievance of the petitioner and/or his apprehension that his right is also going to be affected by consideration of the relief relating to plot no. 330 on the face of it is misconceived because the plaintiff is not claiming any portion of his land. In that view of the matter, the Court below has rightly held that the petitioner was not a necessary party and accordingly his application for 2 impleadment has been rightly rejected. Consequently, the impugned order does not suffer from any material irregularity or jurisdictional error. This civil revision application is thus wholly misconceived and is accordingly hereby dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)