IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5757 of 2010 1. SMT.INDU DEVI, W/O HARENDRA PRASAD GUPTA, R/O VILLAGE - NARAINAPUR,WARD NO.5, P.S - BAGAHA , DISTRICT - WEST CHAMPARAN. Versus 1. SRI SAKALDEO S/O JHAKAR SAH R/O VILLAGE- PATHKAULI, P.S- BAGAHA, DISTRICT- WEST CHAMPARAN. 2. SRI RAJENDRA PRASAD, S/O JHAKAR SAH R/O VILLAGE- PATHKAULI, P.S- BAGAHA, DISTRICT- WEST CHAMPARAN. 3. SRI VIJAY KUMAR PRASAD, S/O LATE NARAIN PRASAD, R/O VILLAGE- PATHKAULI, P.S- BAGAHA, DISTRICT- WEST CHAMPARAN. 4. SRI MOTI LAL PRASAD, S/O LATE NARAIN PRASAD, R/O VILLAGE- PATHKAULI, P.S- BAGAHA, DISTRICT- WEST CHAMPARAN. 5. SRI RADHEY SHYAM PRASAD, S/O LATE NARAIN PRASAD, R/O VILLAGE- PATHKAULI, P.S- BAGAHA, DISTRICT- WEST CHAMPARAN. 6. SRI RANVIJAY KUMAR GUPTA, S/O LATE RAMESHWAR PRASAD GUPTA, R/O VILLAGE- PATHKAULI, P.S- BAGAHA, DISTRICT- WEST CHAMPARAN. 7. SRI BHANU PRATAP GUPTA, S/O LATE RAMESHWAR PRASAD GUPTA, R/O VILLAGE- PATHKAULI, P.S- BAGAHA, DISTRICT- WEST CHAMPARAN. 8. SRI SANJEEV KUMAR, S/O LATE RAMESHWAR PRASAD GUPTA, R/O VILLAGE- PATHKAULI, P.S- BAGAHA, DISTRICT- WEST CHAMPARAN. 9. SRI ANUJ KUMAR, S/O LATE RAMESHWAR PRASAD GUPTA, R/O VILLAGE- PATHKAULI, P.S- BAGAHA, DISTRICT- WEST CHAMPARAN. 10. SMT. GEETA DEVI W/O SHRI GANESH PRASAD, R/O VILLAGE- PATHKAULI, P.S- BAGAHA, DISTRICT- WEST CHAMPARAN. 11. SAMEER KUMAR S/O SHRI GANESH PRASAD, R/O VILLAGE- PATHKAULI, P.S- BAGAHA, DISTRICT- WEST CHAMPARAN. 12. SACHIN KUMAR, S/O SHRI GANESH PRASAD, R/O VILLAGE- PATHKAULI, P.S- BAGAHA, DISTRICT- WEST CHAMPARAN. 13. SANDEEP KUMAR, S/O SHRI GANESH PRASAD, R/O VILLAGE- PATHKAULI, P.S- BAGAHA, DISTRICT- WEST CHAMPARAN. 14. AMRITESH KUMAR, S/O LATE SAKALDEO PRASAD, R/O VILLAGE- PATHKAULI, P.S- BAGAHA, DISTRICT- WEST CHAMPARAN. 2 15. MITHILESH KUMAR, S/O SAKALDEO PRASAD, R/O VILLAGE- PATHKAULI, P.S- BAGAHA, DISTRICT- WEST CHAMPARAN. 16. KAMLESH KUMAR, S/O SAKALDEO PRASAD, R/O VILLAGE- PATHKAULI, P.S- BAGAHA, DISTRICT- WEST CHAMPARAN. 17. SRI RAKESH KUMAR, S/O RAJENDRA PRASAD, R/O VILLAGE- PATHKAULI, P.S- BAGAHA, DISTRICT- WEST CHAMPARAN. 18. SRI GANESH PRASAD, S/O LATE JHAKAR PRASAD, R/O VILLAGE- PATHKAULI, P.S- BAGAHA, DISTRICT- WEST CHAMPARAN. 19. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR , PATNA. ----------- 2 26.4.2010 Petitioner is aggrieved by the order of 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bagaha (West Champaran) dated 21.10.2009 passed in Title Partition Appeal No. 76 of 1976 by which the application of the writ petitioner for impleading her as defendant-respondent in the appeal has been rejected. Petitioner had purchased the property from original defendant no.3. Amongst original defendants there is a partition suit in which preliminary decree has been [passed, which was the subject matter of appeal, as aforesaid. After the preliminary decree, petitioner had purchased property from defendant no.3. Petitioner states that the defendants having sold the land has stopped taking interest in the appeal and it is for this reason that she filed an application for being added as a party- respondent in the appeal. Petitioner further states she wants to protect her property and her right in it and as such she would accept to restrict her part in the suit/appeal to the property in question and right, title and interest as of defendant no.3 in relation thereto. She would not seek to file any fresh written statement and for adduce any fresh evidence and would adopt the 3 written statement of the defendant no.3 because her right is contingent upon the right of the defendant no.3. Having considered the matter, in my view, the stand of the petitioner is just, fair and proper. Learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bagha by the impugned order has refused intervention of the petitioner only on the ground that there has been no judgment as against defendant no.3 and if it is allowed it would start litigation and would amount to re-trial. Both these aspects are wrong as it is a partition suit and petitioner is a purchaser from one of the parties to the suit. In view of what has been undertaken by the petitioner , there is no question of any re-trial because petitioner is a purchaser lis pendens and his right would be accordingly determined depending upon the right ,title and interest of defendant no.3 in respect of the property, in question. Thus, to the extent, as indicated above, the impugned order is set aside and the appellate court is directed to implead the petitioner as a party- respondent and proceed with the matter accordingly in accordance with law keeping in view of undertaking given by the petitioner, as noted above. That would only avoid multiplicity of the Suit. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ application stands disposed of. Singh (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)