IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7468 of 2011 KASHI NATH SAH, S/o. late Shyam Lal Sah, r/o. Vill. Nagai, (Ramgarh Pul), P.S. Ramgarh, P.S. Siswan, District-Siwan. Versus 1. Ramayan Singh, 2. Digvijay Narayan Singh, both sons of late Mahavir Singh, r/o. Village- Subahi, P.S. Siswan, P.O. Noniapatti, District- Siwan. 3. Pasupati Upadhyay, 4. Vidya Upadhyay, Both sons of late Ramadhar Upadhyay, 5. Girija Devi, w/o. Vishwanath Paswan, All r/o. Ramnagar, P.O. Ramgarh, P.S. Siswan, District- Siwan. ----------- 04. 28.04.2011 By impugned order dated 09.05.2007 in Title Suit No. 36 of 1990, the application of the petitioner- applicant for impleadment as intervener defendant was rejected. In the application statement of fact has been made that Kashi Nath Sah is son of Sawitri Devi, who is daughter of Sheopujan Sah. Undisputedly, the Sheopujan Sah was the owner of the property. The applicant/petitioner had filed the documents of Title Suit No. 92 of 1983 which was filed by Smt. Girija Devi, who is vendor of the property and the plaintiffs are vendee of the property by Girija Devi. The suit was filed by Girija Devi which was dismissed for non-prosecution. Therefore, the title of Girija Devi was not 2 determined at all in that suit. This present suit has been filed by the Vendees namely, Ramayan Singh, Digvijay Narayan Singh, Pasupati Upadhyay, Vidya Upadhyay and Girija Devi. The document Basgit Parcha on record which was Exts-8/81-82. The trial court without considering the authenticity and admissibility of that document recorded a finding that the applicant could not claim any interest as Sawitri Devi is alive. The trial-court further fell into an error in not considering the provisions of succession act as after death of Sheopujan Sah, Sawitri Devi and her son inherited the interest. It has been highly disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs that neither Sawitri Devi is daughter of Sheopujan Sah nor the applicant is son of Sawitri Devi but is a stranger. On this issue no finding has been recorded. Therefore, the order is set aside. The parties are directed to adduce detailed evidence by filing documentary evidence along with the affidavit before the trial court. The petitioner shall also file a detailed counter affidavit claiming his interest prima facie in the property subject to admission or denial by the plaintiff, the order shall be passed after 3 considering the evidence. It is reported that in trial-court itself respondent in the writ petition has been substituted. The application shall be decided on the ground that as to whether the applicant has any interest in the suit property or not. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Mkr. (Prakash Chandra Verma, J)