IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.572 of 2008 MOSTT. RAMDENI DEVI @ RAMDENI DEVI & ORS Versus SHANTI SHARMA & ORS ----------- 3 25.07.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this court, the impugned order refusing prayer of the petitioners to be added as parties to the suit cannot be faulted because the Court below has rightly gone to hold that the suit was virtually at the concluding stage and allowing the petitioners to be impleaded could only amount to reopening the whole proceedings. Therefore, there is no jurisdictional error in the impugned order, whereby and whereunder the trial Court has rightly refused to implead the petitioners as a parties to the suit. Counsel for the petitioners, at this stage submits that atleast this much be observed that the judgment and decree of the suit will not be binding on the petitioners. In the opinion of this Court such apprehension of the petitioners is wholly misconceived because it is well settled in law that a person who is not a party to the suit will not be bound by the - 2 - judgment. The counsel for the petitioner has then submitted that certain observations made in the impugned order made against the petitioners may prejudice then in the event they choose to file their own suit. Such apprehension of the petitioner is also wholly misconceived because whenever a finding is recorded in an interlocutory matter that does not and cannot decide the merit of the case. Be that as it may, it is observed that in the event the petitioners would file their own suit, the same will not be in any way prejudiced by any observation made in the impugned order. With the aforementioned observations this application is dismissed. BCJ (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)