IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1635 of 2008 RASH BIHARI ROUT Versus CHANDRAKALA DEVI & ORS ----------- 2. 25.9.2008 Surendra/ Heard counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court the impugned order seeking to implead the intervener Bhola Yadav to say the least is a perfunctory order. It is so because the only reason given for impleadment of Bhola Yadav is that his presence may be relevant for delivering the judgment. Such is not the scope of Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C. It was the specific case of the petitioner that the suit property after family portion was the exclusive property of Mahadeo yadav who had executed an agreement for sale in favour of the petitioner and as such, there was no necessity for Bhola Yadav brother of Mahadev Yadav to be impleaded as a party to the suit for specific performance when the wife and daughter of Mahadeo yadav were already party to the suit. That being so, this Court cannot sustain the impugned order and accordingly, the same is set aside and this civil revision application is allowed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.)