SUKHDEO PASWAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the learned counsel, Mr. Mahesh Narayan Parvat on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Surendra Kishore Thakur on behalf of the respondent Nos. 7 to 10 and Mr. Md. S. Siddique, A.C. to A.A.G.-IX on behalf of the original defendant-respondent. The plaintiff-petitioner filed the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 26.5.2011 as contained in Annexure-3 passed by Civil Judge-1st (Sr. Division), Hajipur in Title Suit No. 263 of 2003 whereby the learned Court below allowed the application filed by the interveners-respondents 3rd set under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure and impleaded them as defendants in the suit.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the plaintiff cannot force to fight litigation against a person against whom he has not claimed any relief. The interveners-respondent are neither necessary party nor proper party in the present suit but the learned Court below has allowed their application and, thereby exercised the jurisdiction arbitrarily. According to the learned counsel, the said respondents are not claiming title or interest in the suit property rather they are claiming their easementary right and, therefore, their right cannot be decided in the present suit.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the intervener-respondent submitted that the learned Court below has exercised the jurisdiction judiciously and the learned Court below found that the interveners are proper party and, therefore, allowed their application. In such circumstances in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, this Court will refrain from interfering with the impugned order which has been passed in exercise of judicial discretion.