IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14758 of 2011 Akhilesh Chandra Pathak Versus Vindhyanchal Pandey & Anr ----------- 02. 08.09.2011 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This application has been filed by the plaintiff- petitioner against the order dated 27.04.2011 passed by Munsif II, Buxar in title suit no.91 of 1996 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 18 of the C.P.C. has been rejected. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that earlier the plaintiff filed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. for adding one Heera Singh as co-plaintiff in the suit on the ground that he has already sold the suit property. The said application was rejected by the trial court. Against the said order, the plaintiff-petitioner filed Civil Revision before the High Court. The said Civil Revision application was allowed by the High Court and thereby the application of the plaintiff was allowed in the year 2005. However, because of delayed communication of the order of the High Court, the plaintiff could not carry on the amendment allowed by the High Court and Heera Singh could not be added as party, defendant. In the year 2007, Heera Singh died. This application under Order 6 Rule 18 was filed in the year 2008. The learned Court below in such circumstances, 2 should have allowed the application filed by the petitioner but wrongly rejected the same. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Court below found that the legal representatives of the deceased Heera Singh had already filed application for being added as party in the suit which has also been rejected by the Court on 21.11.2007. Against the said order passed by the trial court, neither the present plaintiff nor the legal representatives of Heera Singh filed appeal or revision as the case may be. The learned Court below rejected the application filed by the petitioner. Admittedly, prior to adding Heera Singh as defendant in the plaint, he died. Now, therefore, in the garb of Order 6 Rule 18, the legal representatives of Heera Singh whose application for being added as party has already been dismissed by the Court below which was allowed to be attained finality cannot be added. Moreover, recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mumbai International Airport Private Limited Vs. Regency Convention Centre & ors. 2010(7) S.C.C. 417 held that the Court has the discretion to either to allow or reject an application of a person claiming to be a proper party, depending upon the facts and circumstances and no person has a right to insist that he should be impleaded as a party, merely because he is a proper party. Admittedly in 3 the present case, during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff transferred the property to Heera Singh who has died. In such view of the matter, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Court below has exercised a discretionary jurisdiction. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the Court below acted beyond its authority or that he has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law. In view of the above discussion, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. Saurabh ( Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)