IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13643 of 2010 1. RAM NARESH MISHRA S/O JAI PRAKASH MISHRA R/O VILL.- GOTHAULI, P.S.- BAROON, DISTT.- AURANGABAD (BIHAR) Versus 1. SATYENDRA RAM S/O NAND KESHWAR RAM R/O VILLAGE- DIGHI, P.S.- BAROON, DISTT.- AURANGABAD (BIHAR) 2. ANCHAL ADHIKARI BAROON, P.S.- BAROON, DISTT.- AURANGABAD (BIHAR) 3. ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, AURANGABAD (BIHAR) 4. SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, AURANGABAD (BIHAR) ----------- 3. 27.01.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 29.2.2008 passed by the F.T.C. II at Aurangabad in Title Appeal No. 63 of 2006. By the impugned order his application for permission to implead the Collector as respondent at the appellate stage has been rejected. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that notice under section 80 CPC was in fact sent to the Collector at the stage of the suit itself. The impugned order adequately notices that issue no. 4 in the suit was with regard to service of notice under Section 80 CPC upon the Collector. The Collector was not made a party in the suit. From the judgment in the suit placed during submission the Court finds that the trial court came to the conclusion that there was nothing to show that any notice was served on the Collector, Aurangabad as claimed by the petitioner and the onus for which lay upon him. The Court then concluded that since the Collector had not been made a party, the question of service of notice under Section 80 CPC did not arise. The two findings are not contradictory. The first is a finding of fact, the second only discusses a legal proposition. The impugned order adequately notices that the issue with regard to the Collector being a necessary party was never raised by the petitioner in the court below and therefore in absence of any notice under Section 80 CPC ever having been served upon the Collector the prayer for impleading the Collector in the appeal did not arise. The order impugned being reasoned the Court does not find any illegality or irregularity warranting interference in exercise of its supervisory powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This application is dismissed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)