IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6534 of 2010 1. GULAI YADAV, S/O LATE JAMUN YADAV, 2. SADANAND YADAV, S/O GULAI YADAV, 3. DUKHI YADAV, S/O LATE ASHARFI MANDAL, 4. LALO DEVI, W/O UMESH YADAV, ALL R/O MOUJA BARAHI, P.S - MADHEPURA, P.S - HASANPUR, DISTRICT – MADHEPUR ………..INTERVENOR-PETITIONERS. VERSUS 1. SHIVNANDAN YADAV, S/O LATE MUNILAL YADAV, R/O VILLAGE - PIPRAHI, TOLA JAGBANI, P.S-GAMHARIA, DISTRICT -MADHEPURA……PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT 2. ANANT LAL YADAV, S/O LATE SHIVNANDAN YADAV, R/O VILLAGE- RATANPUR, TOLA SANGITWA, P.S - GHAILARH, DISTRICT - MADHEPURA…….DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. 3. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE ADVOCATE GENERAL, BIHAR, PATNA …..RESPONDENT 2ND PARTY For the petitioners :M/s Lala Sachindra Kumar and Ashok Kumar Sinna No.2, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Dr. Md. R. Haque, GP-5 ----------- 02/ 18.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. This writ petition is directed against order dated 06.03.2010 passed in Title Suit No.155 of 2003 by which Subordinate Judge-III, Madhepura rejected the petitioners’ application for being impleaded as party defendants in the said suit. The aforesaid suit was filed by plaintiff-respondent no.1 challenging the entry made in revisional survey khatiyan in the name of the sole defendant (respondent no.2) with respect to the suit land. The said suit proceeded at length and much thereafter on 15.01.2008 petitioners filed the aforesaid intervention application claiming that they had purchased a portion of the suit land from some other person who was not - 2 - the successor of Anantlal Yadav, who was recorded in the revisional survey khatiyan, rather they claimed to have purchased from some one who was a descendant of a person recorded in the cadastral survey khatiyan. In the said circumstances, the intervener petitioners being aggrieved by the entries made in the revisional survey khatiyan should have filed an independent suit with respect thereto, but they did not file any suit rather they filed the said interlocutory application in the instant suit filed by respondent no.1. The court below considered the entire matter in detail and also realised that the plaintiff of the instant suit, namely respondent no.1 was the dominus litus and he was objecting to the intervention of the petitioner in the aforesaid suit. In the said circumstances, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the court below nor does it find any merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. However the petitioners, if advised, may file a separate suit for any relief with respect to the land claimed by him. Harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)