IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11515 of 2011 Shabana Praveen Versus Mehrunnisa & Ors ----------- 03. 28.07.2011 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the Intervener- Petitioner against the order dated 28.03.2011 passed by Sub Judge II, Munger in final decree proceeding in title suit No.52 of 2000. The preliminary decree has already been passed as far back as on 26.08.2006. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not made party in the said suit and the partition suit No.52 of 2000 has been decreed against the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner filed application under Order 22 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. for being added as party in the final decree proceeding which has been dismissed by the Court below wrongly. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has interest in the property and, therefore, she is a necessary party in the partition suit. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that earlier this petitioner had filed application for being added as party in the partition suit which was dismissed up to the High Court by Civil Revision No.2109 of 2008. Thereafter again, this application has been filed. 2 Moreover, it appears that the petitioner has already filed a title suit no.158 of 2007 for declaring the decree passed in partition suit no.52 of 2000 as null and void and not binding on the petitioner. In such view of the matter, it appears that it is not a case that the Court below exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or that he exercised a jurisdiction beyond his bounds and a grave injustice has been occasioned thereby. I, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly, this application is dismissed. Saurabh ( Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)