IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.79 of 2008 AMRESH KUMAR MISHRA & ORS Versus SMT.BONANI KAR & ORS ----------- 8 7/1/2009 Heard counsel for the petitioners. This Civil Revision Application, in fact, has already stood dismissed as against opposite party nos. 8 to 10, 18 to 23, 25 and 27 to 29 in view of non compliance of order of this Court dated 27.11.2008. Counsel for the petitioner, however, would submit that this Civil Revision Application can be heard and disposed of against the remaining opposite parties, in as much as, the prayer made by the petitioners which has been rejected by the court below in the impugned order pertains to refusal of their being added as party to the suit. Heard counsel for the petitioners on merits. This Court would find that as a matter of fact there was a partition suit amongst the family members pending since 1999 being Title Suit No. 289 of 1999. During pendency of this partition suit it 2 is claimed by the petitioners that Plaintiff No.1 had executed power of attorney in favour of one of the applicants and petitioner nos. 1 and 2 and on the strength of it they had transferred the land belonging to Plaintiff No.1 to the petitioner nos. 3 and 4. The Court below has noted that not only the Plaintiff No. 1 had not taken any permission for alienating the land or informing the Court with regard to execution of power of attorney giving an authority to the petitioner, but in fact such alienation was made by power of attorney holders, namely, petitioner nos. 1 and 2, in teeth of the subsisting order of injunction passed by the trial court. That being so, it becomes clear that the attempt on the part of the petitioners now to become party in a partition suit is only to expand arena of the dispute, which as noted above, is confined only for the relief of partition. If the purchasers petitioner nos. 3 and 4 have any such claim of title on the basis of sale effected in their favour by 3 petitioner nos. 1 and 2 they have their own remedy of filing their separate suit, but then they cannot be added as party to the present partition suit. The court below has therefore committed no jurisdictional error in rejecting such prayer of the petitioner and accordingly this Civil Revision Application being wholly misconceived is hereby dismissed. It goes without saying that any dispute as with regard to the alleged excess payment made by petitioner nos. 1 and 2 to Plaintiff no.1, in fact, could not have been made subject matter of partition suit and such accounting, if any, can be definitely claimed by petitioner nos. 1 and 2 strictly in accordance with law by filing of their own suit. This Court, however, would take very serious view of the conduct of plaintiff-opposite party no.1 who is also represented by his counsel. The plaintiff- opposite party no.1 had no business to either give power of attorney during pendency of the partition suit for 4 alienating the land without taking prior permission of the Court and in any event became party to alienation of such land involved in the suit despite continuance of order of status-quo injunction passed by the court below. In that view of the matter, even though this Court has rejected prayer of the petitioners for being impleaded as party in the Court below, it would still direct the court below to take appropriate action against plaintiff no. 1 for violating the courts’ order in terms of order 39, rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure. With the aforesaid observations/directions this civil revision application is dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) Abhay Kumar