2025:JHHC:10680 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 472 of 2023 1 Raj Kumar Burnwal, aged about 54 years, son of Sri Basant Lal Burnwal, Resident of Chandra Kala Niwas Purandaha, P.O. B. Deoghar, P.S. Deoghar (Town), District- Deoghar, 2. Manoj Kumar Burnwal, aged about 54 years, son of Sri Basudeo Lal Burnwal, Resident of village- Suratilona, P.O. Satsang Nagar, P.S. Deoghar (Town), District-Deoghar. ………….Petitioners Versus 1. Robin Roy, son of Dilip Kumar Ray, Resident of 30A, Shankari Tola, P.O. & P.S. Muchi Para, Kolkata-14, (West Bengal). 2. Mittra Labanya Kar, wife of Tapan Kumar Kar and daughter of late Dilip Kumar Roy, Resident of 162/D/620, Lake Garden, P.O. & P.S. Lake Garden Kolkata-45 (West Bengal). 3(a) Smt Barnali Roy Wife of late Arun Kumar Roy 3(b) Deepayan Roy (minor) Son of Late Arun Kumar Roy, Both residence of 30A, Shankari tola, P.O. & P.S. Muchi Para, Kolkata-14 (West Bengal). 3. Smt. Aarti Roy Chowdhary, Daughter of Late Kamla Prasad Roy, Resident of "Roy Bunglow", at Aashram Keshan Aarogya Path, Near Baidyanath Dham Railway Station, P.O. Deoghar, P.S. Deoghar (Town) District-Deoghar. 4. Dr. Bhaswati Konar, Wife of Sri Dev Prassono Konar, Resident of Radha Nagar, South Road, P.O. & P.S. Radha Nagar, District- Burdwan, (West Bengal). 5(a). Pinaki Singho Roy S/o Late Ganesh Chandra Singho Roy and Priti Singho Roy. 5(b) Smt Urmila Gopa Roy, Wife of Sri Tilak Prasad Roy, daughter of Ganesh Chandra Singho Roy and Priti Singho Roy, both are residents of 415-A, Block No.C, New Alipur, Kolkata-700 053, (W.B). 6. Munnam Sanjya, Son of Chandra Narayan Bajpain, Resident of Parmeshwar Dayal Road, Barmasiya, P.O. Deoghar, District- Deoghar. 7. Roshan Kumar Singh, Son of Krishna Nandan Singh, Resident of Dhawabad, P.O. Kukraha, P.S. Chitra, District- Deoghar. 8. Braj Mohan Singh, Son of Gopal Singh, Resident of House no. 14 near Birla Maidan, Indrapuri, Road No. 9, Ratu Road, P.O. Hehal, P.S. Sukhdeonagar, District-Ranchi. 9. Gopal Singh, Son of Bhaktimal Prasad Singh, Resident of Adharsh Colony, Ranga More, P.O. & P.S. Deoghar, District- Deoghar, 10. Amarnath Tiberewal, Son of Sitaram Tekriwal, Resident of 69 Mufasil Thana, P.O. Sarkand, P.S. Mufasil, District- Godda. 11. Vivek Mishra, Son of Nityanand Mishra, Resident of Roy Bunglow, Asharam Keshan Road, Deoghar, P.O. & P.S. Deoghar, District- Deoghar. 2025:JHHC:10680 2 12. Birju Nath Hansda, Son of Lather Hansda, Resident of village- Mohanpur, P.O. & P.S. Bindapathar, District-Jamtara. 13. Saran Alcohol Private Limited through its Director Jogendra Tiwari, Son of Rameshwar Tiwari, Resident of Station Road Mihijam, P.O. & P.S. Mihijam, District-Jamtara. 14. Swastik Traders through its Director Sudip Kumar Dey, Son of Sunil Kumar Dey, Resident of Bijpura North 129, Naihati, near Nana Hospital, Halisar, P.O. Malancho, P.S. Beliyaghat, District- 24 Pargana (West Bengal). 15. Dhanwad Wines through its Director Shankar Singh, Son of Naresh Singh, Resident of 67/03, Krishna Nagar Mihijam, P.O. & P.S. Mihijam, District- Jamtara. 16. Anirudha Kumar Singh, Son of Late Arun Kumar Singh, Resident of Rathore Villa, M.I.G., A/42 Housing Colony Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, district- Dhanbad. …… Opposite Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioners : Mr. Sudhansu Kumar Deo, Advocate For the Opp. Parties :- 06/Dated: 07/04/2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 19.11.2022 passed in Misc. Civil Application No. 70/2020 arising out of Original Suit No. 137 of 2019 by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-III, Deoghar whereby and whereunder the petition dated 15.05.2020 filed on behalf of the intervener under Order I, Rule 10 read with Section 151 C.P.C was allowed by the learned court. 3. Mr. Sudhansu Kumar Deo, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the said suit was instituted by the petitioners/plaintiffs being Original Suit No. 137 of 2019 for declaration of their title and confirmation of possession over the suit property described in schedule of the plaint. He submits that pursuant to notice the defendants have appeared and filed their written statement. He submits that there is no whisper of any sale of land however the interveners were not made O.P. Nos. 6 to 16 in the said suit who filed petition under Order 1, Rule 10 read with section 151 C.P.C. for 2025:JHHC:10680 3 impleading on the ground that the suit land has been sold by the heirs of the defendant no.1 in favour of interveners. He submits that the learned court has wrongly allowed the said petition in view of that the impugned order may kindly be set aside. 4. It is an admitted position that the suit was instituted for declaration of title and confirmation of possession over the suit property and the interveners were not made defendants in the said suit which has compelled them to file petition under Order I Rule 10 read with section 151 of C.P.C for impleading them as party on the ground that the heirs of the defendant no.1 has sold the land in their favour and that petition has been allowed by the learned court. 5. The Court finds that if such a situation is there the learned court has not erred in allowing the said petition. It is discretion of the Court to allow such petition at any stage and if the interveners are said to be purchasers during pendency of the said suit, they are necessary party. The reference made by made to the case of “Dhanlakshmi and others Vs. P. Mohan and others reported in (2007) 10 SCC 719 wherein para 5 it has been held as under:- “Section 52 deals with a transfer of property pending suit. In the instant case, the appellants have admittedly purchased the undivided shares of the respondents nos.2,3,4 & 6. It is not in dispute that the first respondent P. Mohan has got an undivided share in the said suit property. Because of the purchase by the appellants of the undivided share in the suit property, the rights of the first respondent herein in the suit or proceeding will not affect his right in the suit property by enforcing a partition. Admittedly, the appellants, having purchased the property from the other co-sharers, in our opinion, are entitled to come on record in order to work out the equity in their favour in the final decree proceedings. In our opinion, the appellants are necessary and proper parties to the suit, which is now pending before the Trial Court. We also make it clear that we are not concerned with the other suit filed by the mortgagee in these proceedings.” 6. In view of above so far the facts of the present case is concerned, the interveners are said to be the purchaser of the suit property and the prayer in the suit is made for declaration of right, title and interest and in view of that 2025:JHHC:10680 4 one has to look into Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. However transfer by registered deed is there and in the light of the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of “Dhanlakshmi (supra) which has been allowed considering that the property purchased by purchasers from the other co-sharers are entitled to come on the record in order to work out the equity in their favour in the final decree proceedings and in that also at the final decree proceeding the said prayer was allowed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 7. However, so far the present case is concerned, interveners have filed the petition and final decree stage has not come. 8. In view of above there is no illegality in the impugned order accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Pending I.A, if any, stands dismissed.. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Satyarthi/A.F.R.