IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12258 of 2011 Madhu Upadhyay Versus Raj Kishore Tiwari & Anr ---------------------------------- 3. 10.08.2011 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the intervener petitioner against the order dated 8.4.2011 passed by the Sub-Judge-III, Sitamarhi in Title Suit No. 149 of 2005 whereby the learned court below rejected the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C. for being added as party in the suit. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent No.2 is the mother of the petitioner. The agreement was entered into between the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the respondent No.1 filed the suit for specific performance of contract against the mother only. The petitioner has other two sisters who inherited the property of father after father’s death and, therefore, the petitioner filed application for being added as party and the learned court below wrongly rejected the application. Admittedly, the suit was filed for specific performance of contract against the mother who is respondent No.2. The further admitted fact is that the petitioner is not a party to the contract and, therefore, she is stranger to the contract. From perusal of the impugned order it appears that the lower court below taking into consideration this aspect of the matter has rejected the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that she is stranger to the contract. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order under supervisory jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. S.S. (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)