IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.408 of 2007 ----------- Raj Keshwar Bharti, son of late Chandra Sekhar Bharti, resident of Village Done Mathia, P.O. Done, P.S. Darauli, District Siwan. …Intervenor-Petitioner versus 1. Musafir Rai alias Mahanth Singh, son of Jagesar Rai, resident of village Sarna Tole Bechan Rai, P.S. Darauli, District Siwan, wrongly stated as Mahanth Raj Keshwar Bharti, chela of Chandra Shekhar Bharti, resident of son of late Chandra Sekhar Bharti, resident of Village Done Mathia, P.O. Done, P.S. Darauli, District Siwan. … Plaintiff-Opposite Party 2. Mohan Bharti, son of Mahadeo Bharti 3. Bharat Bhushan Bharti 4. Kumar Manglam Bharti 5. Sanjay Bharti Nos. 2 to 5 are sons of Raj Keshwar Bharti, wrongly mentioned as Mohan Bharti and resident of village +P.O. Kukurbhuk, P.S. Darauli, P.O. Done, District Siwan 6. Fauzdar Nonia son of Ram Autar Nonia, resident of village Kanaila, P.O. Kanhauli, P.S. Darsauli, District Siwan 7. Bihar State Religious Trust Board, near China Kothi, P.S. Kotwali, P.O. G.P.O. Bihar at Patna. …… Defendants-Opposite Parties ------ 09/ 12.01.2011 This case is being finally heard at this stage at the instance of both parties. Heard learned counsel for the intervenor- petitioner and learned counsel for plaintiff-opposite party no.1, who is the main contestant in this civil revision. 2. This civil revision has been filed challenging that part of order dated 28.11.2006 passed in Title Suit No. 340 of 2000, by which learned Subordinate Judge-VIII. Siwan directed to add words ‘urf Rajkeshwar Bharti’ in between the names of defendant no.1 and his father. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by plaintiff-opposite party no.1 for setting aside a compromise decree passed in Title Suit No. 162 of 1988, in which the petitioner was the plaintiff. It further transpires that the petitioner filed an intervention application in Title Suit No. 340 of 2000 for being added as a defendant, but the court below instead of adding him independently added only the name of intervenor-petitioner as alias of defendant no.1 Mohan Bharti. It is quite apparent that defendant no.1 Mohan Bharti is described to be son of Mahadeo Bharti, whereas, petitioner Rajkeshwar Bharti claims to be the son of Chandra Shekhar Bharti. 4. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this civil revision is disposed of setting aside that part of impugned order dated 28.11.2006, by which the petitioner’s name was directed to be included as alias name of defendant no.1. Let the name of the intervenor, namely, Rajkeshwar Bharti son of late Chandra Shekhar Bharti be added as party defendant no.7 in Title Suit No. 340 of 2000. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J.)