IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2214 of 2007 C.R. No.918 of 2009 Md.Khalid Ashraf S/o Late Haji Md Ashraf Ali resident of Mohalla Churi Patti Road P.O. & P.S. and Dist. Kishunganj Intervenor- Petitioner Versus 1. Dr.Masoodul Haque S/o Late Haji Azizul Haque resident of Saudagar Patti Road, P.O. & P.S. and Dist. Kishunganj Plaintiff-Opposite Ist party 2. Ali Sajjad 3. Wali Sajjad 4. Ali Raza 5. Iqbal Hasnain sons of Late Md Ayub resident of Mohalla Panjibagh Ward no. 29 P.O. & P.S. and Dist. Kishunganj Defendants- Opposite 2nd Party ----------- For the petitioner: Mr Durganand Jha, Advocate --------- 03 08.09.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, who is same in both cases. 2. C.R. No.2214 of 2007 has been filed by the intervenor- petitioner challenging order dated 31.08.2007 by which learned Munsif I, Kishanganj rejected his intervention application under Order I Rule 10 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for being impleaded as party to Eviction Suit no. 3 of 2004, filed by plaintiff-opposite party no.1. 3. C.R. No.918 of 2009 has been filed by the same intervenor-petitioner challenging order dated 09.03.2009 by which learned Munsif I, Kishanganj rejected his intervention application for being impleaded as party to Eviction Suit no. 3 of 2004. The said application was filed on the basis of a decision of this Court reported in 2008(2) PLJR 449. 4. The aforesaid suit was filed by opposite party no.1 - 2 - against opposite party nos. 2 to 5 for their eviction on the ground of personal necessity of the plaintiff and default in payment of rent by the defendants and also for other ancillary reliefs including arrears of rent etc. It was claimed by the plaintiff that the original owner of the suit premises was Haji Md Ashraf Ali and after his death, his heirs sold the said suit property to the plaintiff vide two registered deeds dated 19.01.1987. The said suit was contested by the defendants. 5. On 15.02.2006 an application was filed by the intervenor petitioner under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil procedure for being added as a party to the suit claiming that he was also one of the sons of Haji Md Ashraf Ali,.who left behind three sons and a widow but subsequently the widow also died. It was also claimed that opposite party nos. 2 to 5 are tenants of the intervenor-petitioner who had also sent legal notice to them on 01.06.2005 (Annexure 1). He further claimed that the sale deed dated 19.01.1987 claimed by the plaintiff was forged and at the relevant time the petitioner was minor and after attaining majority he had filed Title Suit no. 11 of 2005 in which the plaintiff of the eviction suit was also a party and is pending before the learned Munsif , Kishunganj. The said application was rejected by the learned court below vide its order dated 31.08.2007 which is under challenge in C.R. No. 2214 of 2007. 6. It transpires that after some time intervenor-petitioner again filed an exactly similar application in the eviction suit on 20.6.2008 (Annexure 2) taking the help of a decision of this court in the case of Atma Ram Khemka & others vs. Punjab National Bank & - 3 - others reported in 2008 (2) PLJR 449. The said intervention application has also been rejected by the learned court below vide its order dated 09.03.2009 which is under challenge in C.R. No. 918 of 2009. 7. So far the reliance of the petitioner upon the decision of a Single Bench of this court in the case of Atma Ram Khemka (supra) is concerned, it was passed in a first appeal arising out of eviction suit in which defendant nos. 5 to 7, who claimed to be co-sharers out of whom defendant no.5 claimed to be Karta, contested the suit and claimed that the plaintiff and the said defendants belonged to two different families and at no point of time the said defendants were joint with plaintiffs and there was no unity of title and possession with defendant nos. 5 to 7 nor the suit property was purchased from the nucleus of the joint family property including the plaintiff. In the said circumstance, this Court has held that when the plaintiff was claiming that the suit property, purchased in the name of the said defendant, was a joint family property in which the plaintiff was also a member but the said defendant nos. 5 to 7 having completely denied the said claim of the plaintiff, clearly asserting that the suit property involved in the said eviction suit was self-acquired property of the said defendants with which the plaintiff being a stranger to the family had no concern, it was incumbent in those circumstances for the learned court below to consider the entire facts and circumstances of the case which clearly showed that the plaintiff’s suit for eviction was not maintainable. - 4 - 8. The said decision is not at all applicable to the fact and circumstance of this case as in the instant case, Haji Md Ashraf Ali was admitted owner of the suit property and from his heirs the plaintiff has purchased in his own name the suit property by two registered sale deeds dated 19.01.1987. In the said circumstance, it can not be held on the basis of the aforesaid decision that the claim of the plaintiff was not maintainable. Now the intervenor –applicant has come up with a case that he is also one of the co-sharers who was a minor at the time of execution of aforesaid registered sale deed dated 19.01.1987 but his claim is to be considered in Title Suit no. 11 of 2005 which has already been filed in which the plaintiff of the eviction suit is defendant no.1. Law is well settled in this regard as even if the plaintiff is deemed to be a co-owner of the suit property the suit for eviction by him is maintainable and the plea of other co- owners who are not parties to the suit is not to be considered. Reference in this regard may be made to several decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the cases of (i) Surajmal vs Radhey Shyam reported in 1988 BBCJ 96 (SC) , (ii) Pal Singh vs Sunder Singh & others reported in AIR 1989 SC 758 (paragraph 10) , (iii) Smt Kanta Goel vs B.P.Pathak& others reported in AIR 1977 SC 1599 , (iv) Sri Ram Pasricha vs Jagannath & others reported in AIR 1976 SC 2335 and (v) in the case of Sharfuddin & others vs Bibi Khatija & another reported in AIR 1988 Patna 58 (Full Bench). 9. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, both the - 5 - applications filed by the intervenor-petitioner in the court below were absolutely frivolous and misconceived and the learned court below was quite justified in rejecting both the said applications by the impugned orders. This Court does not find any illegality nor does it find any jurisdictional error in the said orders. Accordingly, both the civil revision bearing CR No. 918 of 2009 and CR No.2214 of 2007 are hereby dismissed. shahid (S.N.Hussain, J)