IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1554 of 2006 CHHATHU RAI & ANR Versus SATAHI DEVI & ORS ----------- 2. 15.12.2008 Heard counsel for the parties. This Court would really fail to understand as to on what principles of law the impugned order has been passed. Admittedly the suit in question was contested between Mithu Rai and the petitioners, being Partition Suit No. 26/1981. That suit pertaining to different plots of land including plot no. 65 was decreed with a finding that plot no. 65 was the self acquired property of the petitioners. The plaintiff thereafter had carried an appeal and such appeal being pending from 1988, the plaintiff had alienated part of plot no. 65 in favour of one Kishori Singh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘intervener’). The said Kishori Singh on 30.3.2006 i.e. almost after 18 years of filing of the appeal had filed an application for his being impleaded as a party in the appeal on the ground that certain interest with regard to part of the suit property, being plot no. 65 measuring 2 area of 9 decimals had devolved upon him. The court below has allowed the same by following the principles of Order 22 Rule 10 C.P.C. It is really difficult to understand that if the appellant had alienated certain suit property during the pendency of the appeal, how and why the principles of lispendens will not be applicable. The court has unfortunately recorded that the doctrine of lispendens will not apply and that is one of the reason that the prayer for impleadment of the intervener has been made. That apart the provisions of Order 22 Rule 10 which has to be read inconsonance with the other provisions pertaining to substitution on account of death, marriage or insolvency of parties leading to abatement of the suit as a matter of fact would not be applicable in the facts of the present case because it was not that the original plaintiff had died and was not properly represented in the suit or appeal. There was no question of even abatement of the suit or appeal which had to be undergone 3 by the court below while deciding the application filed by the intervener and as held above, the interest of the intervener was well protected because the plaintiffs- appellants who had parted the same during the pendency of the appeal were required to also justify the same. For that the interveners were not required to be added as a party. This civil revision application is accordingly allowed. The impugned order is set aside and if the intervener wants to protect his own right this order will not come in his way of maintaining his separate suit. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/