IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.672 of 2007 MOHAN PRASAD YADAV, S/o Late Ram Janam Prasad Yadav, R/o Shiv Bazar, P.S. – Bhagwan Bazar, Distt. Saran. ………………………………………………Intervenor / Petitioner Versus 1. PUNAM SAHAY, wife of Sri Rajiv Ranjan Sahay, R/o Mohalla – Chhatradhari Bazar, P.S. Bhagwan Bazar, Distt – Saran ……….. Plaintiff in the court below, 2. Sri Anjani Kumar Sinha, S/o Basudeo Lal Mataufa, R/o Mohalla - Shiv Bazar, P.S. Bhagwan Bazar, Distt. – Saran, and 3. Shashi Prabha, Wife of Sri D. Prasad, R/o Qr. No. 15, Mildih Road, Jamshedpur ….. O.P.Nos. 2 & 3 are Defendants in the court below / Opposite Parties. ----------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. Nagendra Prasad Yadav, Advocate. ----------- 4. 13.11.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This Civil Revision is directed against the order dated 15.12.2006 passed by the Sub Judge VII, Chapra in Partition Suit No. 10 of 1995 whereby the petition filed by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for his impleadment as party defendant in the case has been dismissed by the court concerned. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that one Smt. Kishori Devi, mother of the plaintiff had executed a Mahadanama (Deed of Agreement) for sale of the land in question in favour of this petitioner in the year 1995, but after some time she died in the year 1995 2 itself and her heirs have refused to execute the sale deed on the basis of the aforesaid deed of agreement. The lands involved in that deed of agreement are also the subject matter of the partition suit. The trial court on consideration of rival submissions of the parties had come to the conclusion that on the basis of the deed of agreement, no title had passed upon the intervenor – petitioner and even the said agreement for sale was executed in the year 1995, now no suit having been filed for execution of sale deed within the stipulated time, under the law of limitation, the claim has become time barred also. The suit is for partition of the joint family properties and the petitioner wanted specific performance of the agreement executed by the mother of the plaintiff, which is altogether a different subject matter. In that view of the matter, the prayer of the petitioner had been rejected by the court concerned. I do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order dated 15.12.2006. As a result, this Civil Revision is dismissed. dk ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J. )