IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18124 of 2011 Dhirendra Pd.Sah @ Dhirendra Prasad Versus Smt.Malti Devi & Ors ----------- 08. 17.11.2011 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. By the impugned order dated 25.09.2008 passed by Sub Judge I, Munger in Misc. Case No.4 of 2007, the application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C. filed by the intervener, respondent no.9 has been allowed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the present petitioner was not a party to the suit, he is not a necessary party in the Miscellaneous case which has been filed by the petitioners under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. but the learned Court below has wrongly added the intervener as opposite party in the Miscellaneous case. On the contrary, according to the learned counsel for the respondent after passing the judgment and decree by the Court below, the decree- holder, Malti Devi sold her entire share to the intervener and, therefore, now she has got no interest in pursuing the Miscellaneous case and, therefore, if the intervener is not added as party then his interest will not be represented by anyone. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Court below found that subsequent to the judgment and decree, Malti Devi had sold the suit property to the intervener and put the intervener in possession 2 thereof. The present Miscellaneous case has been filed under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. on 10.04.2007. The learned Court below also found that since the intervener has already purchased, he is necessary party and in the Miscellaneous case, he is required to be heard. In view of the above finding of the learned Court below, in supervisory jurisdiction in my opinion, the order cannot be interfered with and, therefore, this writ application is dismissed. Saurabh ( Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)