SHEO SHANKAR NONIA Vs. RAMDAUR BARAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision by some of the defendants in the court below is directed against order dated 23.8.94 in Title Suit No. 94/87 of 1985/94 of the court of 1st Additional Munsif, Siwan, adding Bhikhari Mahto, since dead and represented by his heirs, as intervenor -defendant under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure ( 'the Code ', in short).

(2.) THE point for consideration is whether a defendant can object to addition of a party when the plaintiff does not oppose the prayer.

(3.) IN the present case intervenor Bhikhari Mistri filed application for his addition as party defendant which was not opposed by the plaintiff. The defendant petitioners opposed the addition on the ground that the intervenor sought to lay claim over property mentioned in schedule III of the plaint with respect to which the plaintiffs had not sought any relief. The addition of the intervenor, therefore, would enlarge 'the scope of the suit. The plea of the petitioners in this regard can be answered by merely observing that allowing intervention does not mean allowing inter se claim (on merit) also. Ordinarily, it is the plaintiff 's claim which is to be determined in the suit. Where the defendant comes forward with any inter se claim in accordance with law, the same may also be adjudicated by the Court, no doubt, but then the defendant can always challenge the decision. Besides, the intervenor, like the plaintiff or original defendant, has to prove his case. Merely allowing the prayer for intervention does not mean that the Court has accepted his claim on merit. And it is always open to the defendant to contest the claim. The intervention, therefore, per se is not likely to cause any prejudice to the defendant.