IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.280 of 2007 Masomat Jageshwari Devi, D/O Late Baidyanath Rawat, W/O Late Puna Rawat, Resident of Village-Kalyanpur, P.O. & P.S. Jamui, District-Jamui. ……Intervenor-Petitioner. Versus 1. Ranjeet Rawat, S/O Bhola Rawat, resident of village- Srichand Nawada, P.O. P.S. & Dist. Jamui. ………… Plaintiff-Opposite Party-1set 2. Bhola Rawat, S/O Late Baidyanath Rawat, 3. Kaushalya Devi, W/O Bhola Rawat, 4. Ajeet Rawat 5. Bachchu Rawat 6. Raj Kumar Rawat, all S/O Bhola Rawat, resident of Village-Srichand Nawada, P.O. P.S. & Dist.- Jamui. ……Defendant-Opposite Party/2nd Set 7. Sharda Devi, W/O Bachchu Rawat, resident of Village-Srichand Nawada, P.O. P.S. & Dist-Jamui. ……\Defendant-Opposite Party-3rd Set ----------- For the petitioner :- Mr. Prabhat Ranjan Singh,Advocate. 3. 10. 07. 2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This Civil Revision has been filed by the Intervenor-petitioner challenging order dated 27. 11. 2006 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge Ist, Jamui in Title Suit No. 30 of 2005, by which he has rejected petitioner’s petition dated 13. 09. 2006 for review of earlier order dated 02. 09. 2006 by which the intervention petition of the petitioner filed under Order 1, Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the Plaintiff- O.P.No.1 for partition of the suit property claiming 1/6th share therein. In the said suit, the defendants have also appeared and the suit is proceeding. 2 4. On 20. 03. 2006, the Intervenor-petitioner filed a petition under Order 1, Rule 10(2) Code of Civil Procedure claiming that she was a member of the family of the parties of the suit and ,hence, was a necessary party in the partition suit and she must be added as a defendant. The said claim of the Intervenor-petitioner was contested by Plaintiff- O.P.No. 1 as also by Defendant No. 4 claiming that the Intervenor-Petitioner did not belong to their family and she was a stranger and there was no occasion to add her as a party in the suit. After hearing the parties the learned court below rejected the said petition by its order dated 02. 09. 2006 finding that no substantial evidence have been produced by the petitioner to show that the Intervenor-Petitioner belonged to the plaintiffs’ family and hence she was a stranger and there was no occasion to add her as a party in the suit. 5. Subsequently on 13. 09. 2006, the Intervenor- Petitiner filed a petition before the learned court below for review of its said order dated 02. 09. 2006, but the learned court below rejected the said petition vide impugned order dated 27. 11. 2006, holding that neither there was any fresh material to come to a finding that she belonged to the family of Plaintiff-O.P.No. 1 as also of Defendant No.4 nor there was any error apparent on the face of the record. This order has been challenged in the instant civil revision by the intervenor. 6. Now the Intervenor-Petitioner has annexed 3 two papers to show that she is a member of the family of Plaintiff-O.P.No.1, out of them one is a certificate of Ward Councillor and the second is a certificate of the Deputy Chairman, Nagar Parishad. Earlier certificate is dated 20. 03 2006 and the second certificate is dated 07. 09. 2006 and the said papers were clearly produced subsequently and were obtained only for the purposes of review. Furthermore, the said papers can not be said to be reliable papers at all and there is no occasion to rely on such papers in the absence of any valid and legal document. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and, accordingly, this Civil Revision is dismissed. However, the Intervenor-Petitioner will be at liberty to file a separate suit, if she wants to get herself proved to be the daughter of Baidyanath Rawat and Dhundhwa Devi. SKBOSE ( S. N. Hussain)