BHAGWAN SINGH Vs. A SANJIVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 18.12.1999 passed by Sri B.K. Choudhary. Subordinate Judge -I, Jamshedpur, in Title Suit No. 74 of 1996 whereby and whereunder the prayer made by the petitioners for intervention in the suit as contemplated under Order Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected.

(2.) THE petitioners contention is that they were party in the proceeding under Sec. 90 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1968 (the Act) before the Settlement Officer in Case No. 78 of 1995 -96 raising their claim over the suit property. The plaintiff -opposite party No. 1 had initiated the above proceeding. The rejection of the prayer of settlement of the plaintiff is a cause of action for the present suit. The petitioners had not been made party although they had claimed over the suit property as per the cause of action being shown in the suit itself. The learned Court below by scrappy order has rejected the prayer on the ground that although the petitioners were claiming possession over the suit property for a long 40 years but no scrap of paper has been submitted in support of their contention. This very observation of the Court below is wrong on the face of it as it appears that along with the petition for intervention, a long list of document had been submitted by the petitioner before the trial Court. A copy of that list of document has been annexed as Annexure 3 to the Civil revision petition.

(3.) ON the factual aspect, Mr. N.K. Prasad, Senior counsel appearing for and on behalf of the plaintiff -opposite party No. 1 has not submitted anything but his contention is that the Civil revision petition is not maintainable and this Court has got no jurisdiction to entertain this petition under Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure as the impugned order does not suffer from lack of jurisdiction or material irregularity. The material irregularity is there on the face of it as the Court below while exercising his jurisdiction had not applied his judicial mind when although documents were there in support of the contention of the petitioners had been overlooked. The further sub -mission of Mr. N.K. Prasad is that under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, there is only one scope of intervention when it could be found that the party intending to intervene is necessary party or a proper party. Here, in the present case, according to Mr. Prasad, although the petitioners had raised their claim but the order had been passed in favour of the State of Bihar and being aggrieved, the suit has been filed.