IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2173 of 2006 1. RAM NARESH BHAGAT 2. GHANSHYAM BHAGAT 3. SHAMDEO BHAGAT ALL SONS OF LATE HARIHAR BHAGAT 4. SARAL BHAGAT SON OF LATE DHONI BHAGAT ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE MATHIYA, P.O. & P.S. MIRAGANJ, DISTT. GOPALGANJ ----- INTERVENORS IN THE COURT BELOW- PETITIONER Versus 1. RAM BALAK BHAGAT 2. SHIV BALAK BHAGAT BOTH SONS OF LATE VISHWANATH BHAGAT 3. BARKALI DEVI, WIFE OF LATE VISHWANATH BHAGAT 4. RAMANTI DEVI 5. VIDWANTI DEVI NOS. 4 AND 5 ARE DAUGHTERS OF LATE VISHWANATH BHAGAT. ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE – MATHIYA, P.O. AND P.S. MIRGANJ, DISTT. GOPALGANJ. 6. KANTI DEVI WIFE OF SUBHASH BHAGAT 7. MAINA DEVI WIFE OF SUBASH BHAGAT 8. RAMA NAND BHAGAT SON OF RAMJIT BHAGAT 9. PRADEEPA KUMARI DAUGHTER OF SUBHASH BHAGAT MINOR DAUGHTER UNDER GUARDIANSHIP OF MAINA DEVI ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE MATHIYA, P.O. & P.S. MIRGANJ, DISTT. GOPALGANJ ----PLAINTIFFS-DEFENDANTS-OPPOSITE PARTY ----------- 2. 10/7/2009 In view of the statement made in paragraph-10 of this revision application, defect No. 3 is ignored. Heard Mr. Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners. Nobody appears on behalf of the opposite parties. The petitioners filed a petition under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for their impleadment as defendants in this case. The court below has rejected the prayer on the ground that the suit is for specific performance of contract whereas the interveners by intervening in the matter, want to challenge 2 the title of the person executing the agreement. It has been held that in view of the matter, petitioners are neither necessary nor proper parties to be added in the suit. I do not find any jurisdictional error in the order impugned. As a result, this Civil Revision application is dismissed. S. Ali (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)