IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1052 of 2011 Achche Lal Sah Versus Bibhakar Shukla & Ors ----------- 2 15.7.2011 The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 26.11.2010 in Title Suit No.141 of 1989/T.S. No.24 of 1989 passed by the Sub Judge III, West Champaran at Bettiah whereby his prayer to implead him as intervener defendant under Order 1, Rule 10 read with section 151 C.P.C. has been rejected. The case of the plaintiffs in short is that the suit land appertaining to R.S. Khata No.9, Khesra No.569, area 9 decimals along with residential house and Sahan was recorded in the name of one Most. Mohara Kuar who gifted it in favour of her daughter’s son Bhrigunath Shukla. The plaintiffs are heirs of Bhrigunath Shukla and thus claims title and possession of the suit land. It is further case of the plaintiffs that they gave the suit properties to the respondent 1st set on monthly rent basis @ Rs.12/-. But since 1981 the respondent 1st set has stopped the payment of the rent. The plaintiffs filed T.S. No.24 of 1989 against the respondent Badri Narayan Dubey (Respondent 1st set) for realization of rent. Thereafter the respondent 1st set by two registered sale deeds dated 22.3.1983 and 10.3.1987 sold the suit property to Respondent 2nd set for which plaintiffs filed T.S. No.141 of 1989 against the Respondent 1st set and 2nd Set. The petitioner submits that the respondent 2nd Set namely Shidhu Sah and Yadu Sah are his own brother and father. He submits that as per mutual partition amongst his brother and father, six out of nine dhurs of suit land came to his share. As such he filed a petition 2 KHAN under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC read with section 151 of CPC to be added as a party. The trial court rejected the application of the petitioner by order dated 26.11.2010. The trial court noticed that the suit is of the year 1989 and though the father and brother of the petitioner were parties to the suit, still the petitioner did not file any application for being added as party earlier. The trial court further observed that the evidence of the plaintiffs closed in the year 1997 and thereafter the case is pending for argument. Even as per case of intervener/petitioner the majority portion of suit property came to his share in 2003 as per mutual partition. The suit property was sold in favour of petitioner’s brother and father and not in his favour by respondent 1st set. The petitioner cannot have better claim then his father and brother who had purchased the suit property from respondent no.1. The relief sought in suit is specific against respondent 2nd set. The trial court has correctly rejected the prayer of intervener to be added as party. The suit is of 1989. The trial court namely Sub Judge III, West Champaran, Bettiah is directed to dispose of the T.S. 141/89 within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The court would not grant any unnecessary adjournment to the parties. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. Let this order be communicated to the Court of Sub Judge III, West Champaran, Bettiah at the cost of the petitioner. (S.P.Singh,J) 3