ANU HANGMA SUBBA Vs. GYAN BAHADUR CHETTRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. J. B. Pradhan, learned Senior Counsel for the revisionist; Mr. B. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 10 and Mr. S. K. Chettri, learned Government Advocate for the respondent nos. 1 to 14.

(2.) The revisionist had challenged the impugned Orders dtd. 7/7/2022 and 2/11/2021 by which an application for impleadment under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) filed by the revisionist was rejected and the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC filed by the respondent nos. 1 to 10 was allowed issuing certain directions upon the respondent no. 13 herein. It is the specific plea of the revisionist that the suit land involved in Title Suit No.08 of 2018 are separate pieces of land described in Schedule A, B and C falling under Sumin Lingchey near Singtam East Sikkim whereas the properties which the revisionist seeks to protect is situated at Chisopani, Revenue Block under Sang Circle.

(3.) The learned Trial Judge vide Order dtd. 7/7/2022 has rejected the application under Order I Rule 10 CPC filed by the revisionist seeking impleadment in Title Suit No.08 of 2018 on the ground that the revisionist had failed to show that she has any interest in the suit properties. The learned Trial Judge also held that the suit properties and the land claimed by the revisionist are different. This is exactly what has been claimed by the revisionist through her counsel which is also accepted by Mr. B. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel who appears for respondent nos.1 to 10 who are the original plaintiffs.