IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.448 of 2007 Khatib Ahmad, son of late Sayaid Khan, resident of village Baghauta, P.S. Imamganj, P.O. Bikopur, District Gaya. ……Intervenor-Defendant-Petiutioner. Versus 1. Dinesh Prasad Singh 2. Awadhesh Singh Both sons of late Kedar Singh, resident of village Kapsiwan, P.O. and P.S. Hilsa, District Nalanda. …Plaintiffs-Opposite Parties Ist Set. 3. Yogendra Kumar Sharma 4. Ram Uchit Sharma Both sons of late Ashdeo Singh 5. Binod Kumar, son of Jugal Singh. All residents of village Kapsiwan, P.O. and P.S. Hilsa, District Nalanda. …Defendants Ist set…Opp. Party 2nd set. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Amar Nath Singh, Advocate. For Opposite. Parties : None. ---------- 02/ 19.08.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the intervenor- petitioner challenging order dated 30.11.2006, by which the learned Munsif, Hilsa, Nalanda rejected his application under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure for adding him as an intervenor-defendant in Title Suit No. 12 of 1993. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiffs- opposite parties first set for declaration of title, recovery of possession, injunction and also for setting aside sale deed dated 18.11.1992 executed by defendants second set in favour of defendants first set as illegal and void. 4. It transpires that the defendants-opposite parties second set appeared in the suit and contested the same, whereafter 2 issues were framed and hearing of the suit started and is still continuing. 5. It further transpires that after about twelve years of the filing of the suit, the petitioner filed an intervention application on 14.03.2005 for being added as intervenor-defendant claiming himself to be the heir of Budhu Singh. This application has been rejected by the learned court below by the impugned order dated 30.11.2006, which is under challenge in the instant civil revision. 6. The learned court below has considered the matter properly and, thereafter, has come to the conclusion that the suit was filed by Budhu Singh, son of Riti Singh and after the death of the original plaintiff his heirs had been substituted, whereas, the intervenor claims to be the descendant of Budhu Singh, son of Mani Singh. Hence the learned court below has found that the predecessor of the intervenor was not the plaintiff Budhu Singh, son of Riti Singh and hence there was no occasion for adding the intervenor as defendant in the said suit. 5. In the said circumstances, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned court below nor does it find any jurisdictional error therein and, accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )