IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1339 of 2006 SRI SUBODH KUMAR Versus SMT. SULOCHANA DEVI & ORS ----------- 2 4.8.2008 Heard Counsel for the petitioner as well as the Counsel for the opposite party no.1, the plaintiff in the Court below. In the opinion of this Court, the impugned order has three part namely impleadment of Sulochana Devi and Binod Kumar, impleadment of Bibi Abru Begam and conversion of the eviction suit into a regular title suit. As with regard to the first part of the order, Counsel for the petitioner representing the interest of the defendant in Court below has ultimately conceded that if the original defendant had sought to explain that the suit property is no longer in their possession and it is the Sulochana Devi and Binod Kumar who are in possession of the suit property, their being impleaded under the provisions of Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be faulted. In that view of the matter, this Court will uphold that part of the order. Coming to the second part of the order, Counsel for the petitioner has raised very serious 2 objection inasmuch as it has been stated that the Court below really exceeded its jurisdiction by looking into some of the information and documents for the purposes of adding Bibi Abru Begam as defendant no.6 for which even there was no application filed by anyone. Though, Counsel for the plaintiff, opposite party had initially tried to support such impleadment of Bibi Abru Begam but ultimately he could also realize there was neither application nor any material on record for such impleadment. The Court below was not justified in adding Bibi Abru Begam. Consequently, that part of the impugned order whereby and whereunder Bibi Abru Begam was suo-motu added as a party to the proceedings is set aside. The third part of the order is with regard to the conversion of the eviction suit into a regular title suit. In the opinion of Mr. Sanjeev Ranjan, this cannot be opposed by the petitioner who is defendant to the suit. Counsel for appearing for the petitioner very fairly submits that he has no grievance against that part of the order as the choice is of the plaintiff to get his suit decided as eviction suit or as a title suit. Consequently, third part of the order is also not interfered by this Court. 3 This Court on being informed by the Counsel of both the parties as also taking into account the observation made in the impugned order dated 31.5.2006 will hold that the loaded findings arrived at by the Court below while deciding an interlocutory matter should not have been made and therefore this Court directs that they will not be taken into consideration for the purpose of final disposal of the suit. This Civil Revision is accordingly disposed of with the aforementioned observations and directions. . Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)