KISHAN KUMAR BHAGAT Vs. RAM DAYAL PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order, dtd. 11/4/2018, passed in Title Suit No. 28 of 2010, by which the learned Sub Judge-III, Danapur, has rejected the petition filed by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure for his impleadment in the suit as defendant.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the original plaintiff of the suit, namely, Sona Devi, sold a piece of land to one Satish Kumar, bearing plot no. 1089, khata no. 288, having an area of 08 decimals on 9/11/2009. The purchaser, Satish Kumar, in turn, sold the said piece of land in favour of the petitioner on 15/1/2010, by virtue of a registered sale deed. Sona Devi filed the aforesaid suit on 6/2/2010 for a declaration that the sale deed is null, void and inoperative and is not binding upon the plaintiff.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the suit, the original plaintiff, Sona Devi, died and she was substituted by her three sons, out of which two sons have joined as plaintiffs and the third son has been made defendant on the basis of the fact that he has executed a rectification deed in favour of Satish Kumar, rectifying the plot no. 1089 into plot nos. 1087 and 1088. On the basis of the purchase made by the petitioner prior to the filing of the suit, the petitioner filed a petition on 10/8/2017, under Order I Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure for his impleadment in the suit as the defendant. Another petition was filed by the plaintiffs on 3/1/2018, under Order I Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, for impleadment of the petitioner and other purchasers of the suit land, which is still pending. However, on the petition filed by the petitioner for his impleadment, the hearing took place and the prayer of the petitioner has been rejected by the impugned order.