ARUN KUMAR YAGNIK Vs. MARY BAPTIST THAKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 9.9.1998 passed by the Subordinate Judge -I, Bettiah, in Title Suit no. 44 of 1996 refusing the prayer of the petitioner to be impleaded as a defendant in the suit.

(2.) THE opposite party no. 1 filed the above -mentioned suit against opposite party no. 2 for specific performance of the contract in respect of the suit land on the basis of Mahadenama. While the suit was proceeding the petitioner filed the petition under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for allowing him to intervene in the suit. According to him, defendant no. 1 in the suit is not the owner of the suit land and Kamala Devi through whom the defendant no. 1 was claiming to be owner as her adopted son is totally myth and that the petitioner is the real descendant of Kamala Devi and as such, if he is not allowed to intervene in the suit then his valuable right over the suit property shall be in jeopardy. Such petition has been highly contested by the defendant no. 1 in the suit claiming that there is no scope of intervention by the petitioner in the suit for specific performance. it appears that already there is a suit pending being Title Suit no. 39/93 filed by the petitioner for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit land in which defendant no. 1 is also a party.

(3.) THUS , the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, impropriety or jurisdictional error and hence there is no scope to interfere with the same by the High Court by invoking Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The revision petition is dismissed having no force in it.