KHUSWARI BEGUM AND OTHERS Vs. PIRU AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dr. A.K.Rath, J By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenge is made to the order dated 20.07.2018, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Baleswar, in C.S. No.610 of 2018-I whereby and whereunder, the learned trial Court allowed the application of the intervenors under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleadment.

(2.) Plaintiffs-Petitioners instituted the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. During pendency of the suit, a compromise was entered into between the plaintiffs and defendantopposite party no.1. They filed an application to dispose of the suit in terms of compromise. While matter stood thus, the opposite party nos.2 to 5 filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleadment. It was stated that the defendant was the original owner of the suit land. They are in possession of the suit land on the basis of the oral gift dated 01.01.2005 made by the defendant. They have instituted C.S. No. 1416 of 2017 in the same court, which is subjudice. They have title over the suit property. Since the suit land has been gifted to them by the recorded owner and another suit is pending for trial, they are necessary parties to the suit.

(3.) The plaintiffs filed their objection denying the assertions made in the petition. It was stated that the defendant was the owner of the suit land. He had gifted the suit land to the plaintiffs orally. The third party petitioners are strangers to the suit land. Their presence is not all required for determining the real controversy between the parties. The third party petitioners have no right to question on the legality of the compromise between the parties. The stand of the defendant is same to the right of the plaintiffs. According to the defendant, he has not gifted the suit land to the third party petitioners. He is the owner of the suit land. The intervenors are strangers to the suit land, and as such their presence is not at all required in the suit.