IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16475 of 2011 Vireshwar Jha & Anr Versus Akshay Lal Sah @ Sardar Sah & ---------------------------------- 02. 22.09.2011. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This application has been filed against the Order dated 01.04.2011 passed by Munsif, Sheohar, Sitamarhi in Title Suit No.2 of 2007 whereby the learned Court below directed the plaintiff to add Collector and Circle Officer as party-defendant in the suit. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Court below misinterpreted the order passed by the Apex Court in 2007 S.A.R. (Civil) reported in 2007 (14) Supreme Court cases 253 and directed the plaintiff to add the Collector and Circle Officer as party-defendant. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner filed the application for dismissal of the suit for non-joinder of necessary party, i.e., Collector and Circle Officer. In the order, the learned Court below held that the application of this petitioner is allowed. According to the learned counsel, the learned Court below passed contradictory order. In 2007 (14) Supreme Court cases 253 Mehar Chandra Das Vs. Lal Babu Siddihique, the Apex Court has held that in suit challenging the grant of Parcha under Bihar Privilege Person Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947, Collector is necessary party. Referring to this decision, the learned Court below allowed the contention of the petitioner - 2 - that Collector is necessary party. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after finding that Collector is necessary party, the Court below should have dismissed the suit. From perusal of the decision Mehar Chandra Das (Supra), it appears that in that case against the decree passed by the High Court, the parties filed the Civil Appeal No.6413 of 2000 before the Apex Court. So far the present case is concerned, the suit is at the very initial stage. In 2010 (7) Supreme Corut cases 417 (Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Pvt. Ltd. & Ors), the Apex Court has held that Order 1 Rule 10 (2) C.P.C. is not about the right of a non-party to be impleaded as party but it speaks about the judicial discretion of the Court to strike out or add party at any stage of proceeding. In exercising its judicial discretion under the said rule, the Court will of course act according to reason and not according to whims and caparice. In such view of the matter, from perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Court below has exercised a discretionary jurisdiction judiciously vested in it by law. I, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the same. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. Sanjeev/- (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)