IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2141 of 2008 MADAN PASWAN Versus AJAY YADAV & ANR ----------- 2 15.01.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, there was sufficient material before the Court below to hold that Nakchahed Yadav was a proper if not necessary party, to be impleaded in the suit. The threadbare analysis made by the court below in this respect and that too after looking into the document in question, the sale deed in favour of Nakchahed Yadav, leaves nothing for this Court to take a contrary view on this issue. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner that earlier a similar prayer was rejected by the court below by an order dated 31.5.2007 is also incorrect inasmuch as the earlier prayer at that point of time by the plaintiff-opposite party was only for amendment in the plaint and that amendment in the plaint was rejected altogether on different consideration. In any event that order would not bind Nakchahed Yadav, the intervener whose prayer for impledment in fact has been allowed by the Court below in the impugned order. That being so, this Civil Revision application is wholly misconceived and is hereby dismissed. Bibhash (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) - 2 -