IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1115 of 2006 BABUJI YADAV Versus SIYA RAM YADAV & ORS ----------- 6 3.12.2008 Heard Counsel for the parties. In the opinion of this Court, the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court below in refusing the impleadment of the opposite parties Siya Ram Yadav and others in terms of Order I Rule 10(2) C.P.C., does not suffer from any jurisdictional error. In the application which was filed by the intervener seeking impleadment, they had clearly demonstrated their direct interest in the suit property. The only thing which has been now sought to be canvassed as against the impugned order is that the plaintiffs are the master of the suit and therefore, they cannot be compelled to add any one as a party or that as a matter of fact the compromise arrived between the original plaintiff and defendant, would be obstructed in view of the impleadment of the interveners. Such plea however can hardly a ground to reject the application for impleadment under Order I Rule 10(2) C.P.C. The petitioner in fact also has not denied that the suit property had also certain interest of the applicants seeking intervention in the suit. The plea of the 2 petitioner that such interest had already been alienated by the interveners way back in the year 1915 has not been only seriously contradicted by the interveners but from paragraph no.8 of the intervention application, it would appear that they were the Khatiyani Raiyats. Though the statement in paragraph no.8 had been denied by the petitioner in the Court below but no corresponding document had been placed on record to satisfy the Court below that the interveners were either stranger or not connected with the suit property. The share of one of the branches of the Khatiyani Raiyat, said to have died issueless being claimed by the interveners by devolution and its being extinguished in view of the stand of the petitioner, can only be looked into only when the interveners are allowed to be added as a party to the suit and that by itself was sufficient to make them entitled to contest the suit. That being so, this Court would not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly, this civil revision being wholly misconceived is hereby dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)