IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1322 of 2006 SUSHILA DEVI Versus SRI RAM RAN VIJAY PRATAP SINGH ----------- 2 29.7.2008 Heard Counsel for the petitioner. The solitary reason which has weighed upon the Court below in rejecting the application of the petitioner for impleadment is that no document was brought to the notice of the Court in support of the claim of the petitioner that she belongs to the family of the plaintiff. Counsel for the petitioner however has referred to a list of documents filed on behalf of the petitioner in the Court below on 20.5.2006 which would go to show that at least two certificates of the public authorities were brought on record by the petitioner to establish her claim that she belongs to the family of the plaintiff. The approach of the Court below, therefore, in not allowing the petitioner to establish her claim and showing her the door of the Court only on the ground that she did not produce document, does not appear to be factually correct. The order of the Court below therefore is set aside and the matter is remitted back now to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for being impleaded as a party in the light of 2 the documents already filed by her about which the plaintiff also have made no denial in their rejoinder to the application seeking such impleadment. The petitioner will have the liberty to also bring on record any other documentary evidence for proving her claim that she belongs to the family of the plaintiff. It is however made clear that this Court has expressed no opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner for addition of party which must be decided by the Court strictly in terms of Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)