1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.120 of 2008 ----------- 1. Sabitri Devi widow of late Basudeo Prasad 2. Om Prakash 3. Amarnath Prasad 4. Ashok Kumar 5. Mukesh Kumar 6. Ranjeet Kumar Nos. 2 to 6 sons of late Basudeo Prasad 7. Manju Devi 8. Maya Devi 9. Mamta Kumari Nos. 7 to 9 daughters of late Basudeo Prasad All residents of Mohalla Thatheri Bazar, P.S. Pirbahore, District Patna. …. Plaintiffs-Petitioners. -versus- 1. Radhey Shyam Prasad alias Radhey Shyam, son of late Kamta Prasad 2. Meera Devi, daughter of late Kamta Prasad Both residents of Mohalla Thatheri Bazar, P.S. Pirbahore, District Patna, presentlyu residing at Deoghar (Baidyanath Dham), Mohalla Wiliums Town, P.S. Deoghar, District Deoghar. 3. Shankar Prasad Yadav, son of late Bangali Prasad Yadav, resident of Mohalla Chaitola, Patna, P.S. Pirbahore, District Patna. ….Defendants-Opposite Parties. ------- For the Petitioners : M/s Ram Hriday Prasad and Uday Kumar, Advocates. For Opp. Parties : None. ------- 04/ 23.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the plaintiffs- petitioners challenging order dated 06.12.2007, by which the learned Subordinate Judge-III, Patna, directed defendant- opposite no.3 to adduce evidence in Title Suit No.191 of 1996. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the original 2 plaintiff, namely, Kamta Prasad for partition of the suit property and for injunction along with his two children Radhey Shyam and Meera Devi. It further transpires that subsequently the said plaintiffs left pairvi of the case and hence the defendants of the suit on their request were transposed as plaintiffs and the said plaintiffs were transposed as defendants, whereafter Kamta Prasad died and his children are opposite parties no. 1 and 2 in the instant civil revision. 4. It further transpires that subsequently opposite party no. 3, who was purchaser from the said Kamta Prasad vide sale-deed dated 01.07.2000, filed an application on 16.12.2002 under Order I Rule 10, read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for adding them as defendants in the suit specially because Kamta Prasad had died and his children were not taking interest in the suit. The said application of intervenor- opposite party no.3 was rejected by the learned court below vide order dated 17.01.2003 holding that he was not a necessary party as he had purchased the suit property during the pendency of the suit from late Kamta Prasad whose heirs are already on record of the suit. 5. The aforesaid order dated 17.01.2003 was challenged by opposite party no.3 vide Civil Revision No. 1764 of 2004 and after hearing the said civil revision was allowed by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.07.2007 setting aside the order of the learned court below dated 17.01.2003 and directing that the intervenor to be added as defendant in the suit. 3 The said order of this Court was never challenged. 6. It transpires that on the basis of the aforesaid order of this Court, intervenor-opposite party no.3, who was added as defendant in the suit, filed an application in the court below for being allowed to cross-examine the witnesses of the other side and to adduce evidence in connection with his pleading. This application was allowed by the learned Subordinate Judge-III, Patna, vide his order dated 06.12.2007, which is under challenge in the instant civil revision. 7. Larned counsel for the petitioners vehemently opposes the said order of the learned court below on the ground that the subsequent transferee does not get any right to lead any evidence as he has stepped into the shoes of a person, who was already a party to the suit and who had given up his right to lead evidence. In this connection, he refers to a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Dhanna Singh and others vrs. Baljinder Kaur and others, reported in A.I.R. 1987 Supreme Court 3720. 8. From the above-mentioned facts and circumstances of the case as well as the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioners and the materials on record, it is quite apparent that in the instant case the vendor of opposite party no.3 had already died and his heirs were not taking interest in the suit property as the property had already been sold by their father. Under these circumstances, when the said opposite party no.3 filed an intervention application in the suit 4 and it was rejected by the learned court below, this Court vide its order dated 05.07.2007 passed in Civil Revision No. 1764 of 2004 set aside the said order of the trial court and directed opposite party no.3 to be added as defendant in the suit relying upon two decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Savitri Devi v. District Judge, Gorakhpur and others, reported in A.IR. 1999 Supreme Court 976 as well as in case of Khemchand Shankar Choudhari v. Vishnu Hari Patil, reported in (1983) 1 SCC 18, in which all the concerned provisions of law including provision of section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act as well as provision of Order XXII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure were considered. 9. In the said circumstances, the case law cited by learned counsel for the petitioners in case of Dhanna Singh and others (supra) is not at all applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case as if opposite party no.3 is not impleaded and not allowed to contest properly, he may suffer by default on account of any order passed in the proceeding and hence if such a person applies to be impleaded as a party, he has to be heard on the basis of his pleadings and evidence. 10. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned court below nor does it find any jurisdictional error therein. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )