IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10498 of 2010 SUNDER DEVI W/O LATE BINAY KUMAR R/O- MOHALLA L.I.G. HOUSE NO. 245/B/62, P.S.-KANKAR BAGH, DISTRICT-PATNA. …………INTERVENOR PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE REGISTRAR CIVIL COURT, DANAPUR, PATNA. 3. SEEMA DEVI W/O LATE SUESH SINGH, R/O MOHALLA-GARIKHANA, P.O. AND P.S. KHAGAL, DISTRICT-PATNA. 4. NITU SINGH W/O YOENDRA KUMAR, R/O VILLAGE-NADPURA, P.S. PUNPUN IN JTHE, DISTRICT-PATNA. 5. DHARMENDRA SINGH S/O LATE SURESH SINGH. 6. MADHU KUMARI D/O LATE SURESH SINGH. 7. PINKI KUMARI D/O LATE SURESH SINGH. ALL R/O MOHALLA-GARIKHANA P.S.-KHAGAUL, DISTRICT-PATNA. ……………….RESPONDENTS 1ST SET. 8. AKHTARI BEGAM W/O LATE SHEIKH MD. SAUKAT. 9. ABDUL HAI. 10. ABDUL HAQUE BOTH ARE SON OF LATE SHEIKH MD. SAUKAT, ALL ARE R/O MOHALLA-DRIVERS LANEM P.S.-DANAPUR, DISTRICT-PATNA. …………….RESPONDENTS 2ND SET. 11. SHEIKH MD. ILIAS S/O LATE SHEIKH MD. ABDUL GAFFAR, R/O MOHALLA DRIVERS LANE, P.S.- DANAPUR, DISTRICT-PATNA. …………..RESPONDENT 3RD SET. For the petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar (Advocate) For the respondent nos. 3 and 5 : M/s Pandit Jee Pandey (Advocate) Navnit Kumar Tiwari.(Advocate) For the State : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar (Advocate) 2 2 18-08-2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition is directed against order dated 12-5-2010 passed in Title Appeal No. 75 of 2005 by which Additional District Judge, Danapur rejected the interlocutory application of the petitioner for being added as respondent to the said Title Appeal. 3. The aforesaid Title Appeal had arisen out of Redemption Suit No. 35 of 2000 in which judgment and decree was passed on 23-7-2005. There was another earlier Title Suit No. 143 of 1982 in which the auction sale had already been set aside, but against the said judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 143 of 1982, no appeal or revision was filed by any one and hence it attained finality. 4. Petitioner claims that he had purchased the portion of land in question during the pendency of the said suit and hence the learned Court below rightly held that she will also be bound by the result of the said title suit No. 143 of 1982. Further more, the Court below very elaborately considered the matter and came to the finding that the intervenor was not a necessary party to the said Title Appeal. 3 5. In the said circumstances this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order nor does it find any merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. S.P. (S. N. Hussain,J.)