IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1240 of 2006 BABAN BIHARI PANDEY Versus PHULESHWARI DEVI & ORS ----------- 3 15.12.2008 Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party No.9. It is not in doubt that after filing of this Civil Revision application opposite party No.9 Mankeshwar Pandey who is being represented by Mr. Baidya Nath Thakur, Advocate has filed his partition suit No. 152 of 2006 in which the land in question for which the intervention was earlier allowed in Title Suit No. 58 of 1997 is also involved. Since the intervener, Mankeshwar Pandey has already taken safeguard by filing a substantive suit it would be absolutely of no avail to also allow him to continue to contest the present Title Suit No. 58 of 1997 as has been done by the Court below in the impugned order. The Title Suit No. 58 of 1997 infact does not involve the issue as to whether there was a previous partition of the plot. That suit is only with regard to declaration of right and title.. In that view of the matter, this Court would hold that Mankeshwar Pandey was not required to be added as a party in Title Suit No. 58 of 1997 as he was nether necessary party nor a proper party in terms of Order 1, Rule 10(2) C.P.C. The impugned order is accordingly set aside. It is however, made clear that anything which would be determined in relation to the land in question in the present - 2 - suit, also which is also subject matter of subsequent partition suit filed by Mankeshwar Pandey would not be binding on Mankeshwar Pandey. With the aforesaid observations and directions this Civil Revision application is allowed only to the extent indicated above. Bibhash (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)