UMA SHARAN SINGH Vs. BIHARI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD .

(2.) IT is inter alia submitted that opposite party no. 3 was allowed to intervene in the appeal which arose out of a suit as between the plaintiff and the petitioner in respect of certain lands. The intervenor had suffered an order under Sec. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure declaring possession of the petitioner in the year 1985. She did not challenge the same or file any suit for recovery of possession based on her title which suit became barred under Article 65 of the Limitation Act. She then filed a suit being Title Suit No. 144 of 2003 as against the petitioner. During the pendency of the said suit she is now trying to intervene and get her title decided as between herself and the petitioner. This suit is now barred, it is submitted that she is undisputedly trying to avoid limitation and as such inclusion as permitted by the appellate Court is wrong.

(3.) HEARD Mr. Shahi, learned counsel appearing in support of this revision application. It would first be seen that the suit from which the appeal arises was as between Opposite Party nos. 1 and 2 the plaintiff and the petitioner. The plaintiff wanted his right, title and interest to be decided viz -a - viz the petitioner. The petitioner 'spossession had already been declared as far back as in the year 1985. The dispute was as between the said parties the intervenor had lost in the 145 Cr. P.C. proceeding she had a right to challenge the said order and get her title declared and recover possession based thereon. She failed to do so. She let the statute of limitation intervene, then belatedly she filed a suit. She need not then be permitted to intervene at the appellate stage of these proceedings inasmuch as the right, title and interest would have been decided as between the plaintiff and the defendant of this suit she not being a party the judgment would not bind her. She had herself instituted a suit against the petitioner where the question of title as between the two would be independently decided. Therefore, there was no necessity for her to intervene in the present proceeding. Apparently Mr. Shahi is correct to suggest that having lost her right to sue by virtue of Article 65 of the Limitation Act, by not bringing any action within twelve years of the declaration under Sec. 145 Cr.P.C. now indirectly she wants to intervene and circumvent the statutory bar to get the issue reopened and re -decided, that surely is not permissible. She cannot be permitted to do indirectly what the statute prohibits her from doing directly.