JAGDISH PRASAD Vs. GIRIJA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 19.5.99 passed by Sub - Judge, Sheikhpura in title suit no. 112/88.

(2.) THE case of the revisionist is that the revisionist had filed the aforesaid title suit against the opposite party no. 2, Balmiki Thakur of this revision. When already evidence on behalf of both the parties were going on a petition under Order 26, rule, 9, C.P.C. was filed and a pleader commissioner was appointed who submitted his report. The pleader commissioner was examined by the court and when the suit was almost on the verge of conclusion, a petition was filed on behalf of opposite party no. 1, Most. Girija Devi, to add her as a party to the suit. This prayer was allowed by the court.

(3.) ON perusal of the impugned order, I find that the learned Sub -Judge, allowed the prayer of the intervenor Most. Girija Devi even though she did not lay any claim to the suit plot no. 542. She was claiming plot no. 542 by purchase which was adjacent to plot no. 541. It has been stated in the impugned order that the intervenor claimed that her plot No. 542 being adjacent to 541, there was need for demarcation between the two plots. Her son, Balmiki Prasad, was the original defendant of the suit. Hence, learned Sub -Judge allowed Girija Devi to be added as party to the suit. I found the ground for addition of Girija Devi as a party to the suit was based on erroneous consideration. When there was no claim of this lady to the suit land, there was no need to add her as a party to the suit almost at the fag end of the case. The learned Sub -Judge misdirected himself and misconstrued the legal position in this connection. Demarcation is not the job of the Civil Court if at all Girija Devi needed any demarcation between her plot and the plot of the plaintiff she was to knock the doors of the Executive Officers in this connection.