IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9243 of 2011 Hare Ram Singh Versus Raghunandan Singh @ Sikar Sing ---------------------------------- 12. 15.11.2011 1. I have heard the learned counsel Mr. Rajnikant Pathak on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Pramod Manbansh, learned counsel on behalf of the respondent. 2. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the plaintiff petitioner for setting aside the order dated 27.4.2007 passed by Munsif –I, Begusarai in Title Suit No. 90 of 1985 whereby the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C. has been dismissed. 3. It appears that originally, this plaintiff petitioner along with the other plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4 filed the aforesaid suit for declaration of title and confirmation and/ or recovery of possession over the disputed land. Thereafter the plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4 filed an application in the year 1997 praying for expunging their names on the ground that they have got no concern with said land and the signatures have been obtained fraudulently. After hearing the parties by terms of order dated 30.6.1997 their names were expunged from the plaint. Only the plaintiff petitioner remained in plaint. 4. From perusal of the impugned order it 2 appears that subsequently, the said plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4 filed an application dated 21.6.2006 for being added as plaintiff in the suit which was rejected by terms of an order dated 11.7.2006. Against the said order the said plaintiffs whose names were deleted filed civil revision No. 1341 of 2006 before the High Court which was dismissed on 22.1.2007. Now therefore, the order whereby the prayer of the said persons for being added as co-plaintiffs has been rejected by the trial court which was confirmed by the High Court in civil revision. It appears that thereafter the plaintiff filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. for adding the said person again as co-plaintiff. By the impugned order the learned court below has rejected the said application on the ground that their addition was refused earlier which has been confirmed by the High Court and further that after deleting their names the parties adduced evidences and the case was fixed for argument and in fact the parties were heard substantially but during that long period the plaintiff never objected. On this ground the application has been rejected. 5. In view of the facts and circumstances, it appears that the learned court below has after discussing all the materials and the facts passed the impugned orders. 6. In view of the above facts, I find no 3 jurisdictional error in the impugned order. The prayer for addition of three persons had already been rejected earlier and by the present application the plaintiff wants to add them which cannot be permitted. 7. In the result, I find no merit in this writ application as such it is dismissed. S.S. (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)