CHATURBHUJ MAHAPATRA Vs. KALU MURMU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. K.P. Choudhary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revisionist and Mr. P.K. Mukhopadhyay, appearing on behalf of the contesting opposite parties. The instant civil revision was filed in this Court on 26th September, 2000 and an order was passed on 16th October, 2000, issuing notice to opposite party nos. 7 and 8, showing cause why the revision application may not be admitted or, if possible, finally disposed of at the stage of admission itself.

(2.) The order under challenge is dated 31st August, 2000 passed by Munsif, Ghatsila in Title Suit No. 48 of 1998 whereby the intervenors' application on behalf of opposite party nos. 7 and 8 was allowed. The title suit was instituted for a declaration of plaintiffs right, title and interest and possession over the suit land viz. Khata No. 35, Plot No. 180, Area 0.66 decimals situated at Mauza Darisole, District Singhbhum East, Alternative relief was for recovery of possession, in the event it was found that the plaintiff was wrongly dispossessed from the suit land and he was not in possession.

(3.) The intervenors, namely, Nandlal Mahapatra and Ram Chandra Mahapatra filed an application under Order 1 Rule 3 Code Civil Procedure which was allowed. The revisionist challenged the impugned order on a number of grounds. Firstly, it is not sustainable and suffers from jurisdictional error; there was no reason to entertain the application on behalf of opposite party nos. 7 and 8; and by allowing the said application and impleading them as respondents, wrong exercise of jurisdiction by the court below. It is further contended that the scope and ambit of Order 1 Rule 3 Code of Civil Procedure does not contemplates intervenors to be arrayed as party who have no connection with the suit property.