IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1977 of 2008 KAUSHLYA DEVI Versus RAJMANI DEVI & ORS ----------- 2 28/11/2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. From the impugned order it does not transpire as to on what ground impleadment of Pranav Kumar was found to be necessary and how the court below came to a conclusion that the said Pranav Kumar was necessary or proper party. In fact not a word has recorded by way of finding on the objections raised by the plaintiff- petitioner. The case of the plaintiff- petitioner that mother of Pranav Kumar had claimed the property in question to be self acquired property, was itself good enough to disentitle intervention of Pranav Kumar, but even that has also not been considered. The only reason that the mother and sister of Pranav Kumar was a party to the suit could by itself hardly be a grand to allow impleadment of Pranav Kumar. All the aforementioned facts really make the impugned order bad, vulnerable and also vitiated by apparent 2 jurisdictional error. Accordingly, impugned order is set aside and the Court below is directed to reconsider the matter with regard to impleadment of Pranav Kumar afresh strictly in accordance with law and in the spirit of Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, this application is allowed to the extent indicated above. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) Abhay Kumar