IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE NO.7110 OF 2011 HARI LAL SAH S/O LATE MAHADEO SAH, VILLAGE BHAWANIPUR, POLICE STATION AMOUR, PURNIA. VERSUS 1. SRIMATI BHUBANESHWARI DEVI, village DHURPALLI, POLICE STATION AMOUR DEFENDANT 1ST SET. 2. SRI SANT LAL SAH BHAWANIPUR, POLICE STATION AMOUR.. DEFENDANT 2ND SET 3. MD SAGER, village BAWANIPUR, POLICE STATION AMOUR, PURNIA 4. MD SABBIR and 5. MD FIROZ, BOTH S/O SK.JAKIR, BHAWANIPUR, POLICE STATION AMOUR, PURNIA.. 3RD AND 5TH ARE INTERVENOR DEFENDANS. ------- RESPONDENTS. ---------------------------------- 3 28/09/2011. The petitioner is plaintiff in Title suit no. 34 of 2002 and prays for following relief:- i) That let it be declared and decreed that the suit land is the homestead land of a Hindu joint coparacenary family consisting the father Mahadeo Sah and his two sons the plaintiff no.1 Hiralal Sah and the Manik Ch. Sah ancestor of the plaintiff nos. 2 to 5 and there are dwelling houses thereon. ii) That after such adjudication it may also be declared and decreed that Mahadeo Sah had no authority in law to execute and register a deed of gift dated 3.8.1999 for the suit land in favour of the defendant no.1 without the consent of his two sons, the coparceners of the family. iii) That further it may also be declared and decreed that Mahadeo Sah never executed and registered the said deed of Gift dated 3.8.1999 knowingly and consciously rather the signature of Mahadeo Sah was obtained by the defendant no.2 and her husband by suppressing the real fact as well as by playing fraud on him. iv) That after the aforesaid adjudication the deed of gift dated 3.8.1999 be declared to be a nullity in law and void document and the said deed of gift has not conferred any manner of right, title, interest and possession to the defendant no.1 over the suit land. 2 v) That it may also be declared and decreed that the plaintiffs are in possession over the suit land having all manner of their right, title interest there in and the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land be confirmed and the defendant no.1 be restrained by an order of permanent injunction from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. vi) That cost of the suit be also decreed in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants. vii) That any other relief or reliefs to which the plaintiffs be found entitled for be also decreed in favour of the plaintiffs. The petitioner states that he has already adduced and closed his evidence. The original defendants also have examined two witnesses. He submits that belatedly on 19.7.2010, the intervenor defendants who are respondent nos. 3,4 and 5 filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC read with Order XXII Rule 10 CPC for being added as defendant nos. 3,4 and 5 on the ground that they have purchased the portion of the suit premises from defendant nos. 1 and 2, who are not now taking full interest in the case. The trial court allowed the application of the intervenor defendants and added them as party. 3 The plaintiff submits that the impugned order adding them as party defendants is bad in law. He submits that only with a view to delay the trial, the original defendants sold the suit land to intervenor defendants 3,4 and 5. He further submits that intervenor defendants purchased the suit land on 24.6.2002, still they did not file any petition for being impleaded as intervenor defendants for good 7 to 8 years. He submits that defendant no.1 and 2 have already filed written statement. As the respondent no. 3,4 and 5, who purchased the suit property have filed an application for being added as party in July, 2010, though they purchased the property in the year 2002, they are restrained from filing any separate written statements. They would be deemed to have adopted the written statement filed by their vendor in the year 2002 itself as the purchaser would in no case have a better title than the vendor themselves. The intervenor defendants would adduce all their evidence by 10.11.2011. The writ petition thus stands disposed of. Let a copy of this order be communicated to 4 the court of Munsif, Sadar Purnea through fax at the cost of the petitioner. Shashi. (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)