2025:JHHC:11349 --1-- C.M.P. No. 726 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI C.M.P. No. 726 of 2023 ---- Umakant Singh, aged about 51 years, son of Late Shiv Shankar Singh, resident of 7/1 Haricharan Benarjee Street, Belur Math, Bali, PO – Belumath, PS – Howrah, Howrah (W.B.) through its attorney Rajendra Kumar Chourasia, aged about 39 years, son of Late Jamuna Prasad Chourasia, Resident of Baxi Bandh Road, Dumka, PO and PS – Dumka Town, District - Dumka .... Petitioner -- Versus -- 1. Prem Hembrom, son of Master Rasik Hembrom, resident of Kadharbil, Ward No.3, near Durga Mandir, Shivpahar, PO – Dumkar, PS – Dumka Town, Sub-division and District – Dumka 2. Kedar Pathak, son of Late Bishwanath Pathak 3. Jagarnath Pathak, son of Late Bishwanath Pathak 4. Parasnath Pathak, son of Late Bishwanath Pathak 5. Divyanshu Shekhar, son of Kedar Pathak 6. Deepak Kumar Pathak, son of Jagarnath Pathak 7. Pranav Kumar Pathak, son of Jagarnath Pathak 8. Uday Kumar Pathak, son of Jagarnath Pathak 9. Rakesh Kumar Pathak, son of Jagarnath Pathak 10. Amit Kumar Pathak, son of Jagarnath Pathak 11. Prem Prakash Pathak, son of Parasnath Pathak 12. Prabal Kumar Pathak, son of Parasnath Pathak All are resident of Nagpath Road, Resident of Shiv Pahar, Dumka, PO – Dumka, PS – Dumka (T), District - Dumka .... Opposite Parties ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, Advocate :- Mr. Jagat Kumar Soni, Advocate For O.Ps. :- Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate ---- 06/15.04.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties. 2025:JHHC:11349 --2-- C.M.P. No. 726 of 2023 2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside of the order dated 17.02.2023 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-II, Dumka in Original Suit No.3 of 2022 whereby the learned Court has been pleased to allow the petition dated 22.12.2022 under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code. 3. Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Original Suit No.3 of 2022 has been instituted with a prayer for declaration of right, title, interest and delivery of possession over the suit land as described in Schedule A i.e. Jamabandi No.55/12 of Mouza Kadharbil No.14, Plot No.278, 280, PS and Anchal Dumka Town, Sub-Division and District – Dumka stood recorded in the name of Dildehi Devi in the Gantzer’s Khatiyan contained in Annexure-1. He submits that upon notice defendant appeared and filed the written statement. He further submits that the interveners earlier filed a petition on 24.12.2022 under Order I Rule 10 of C.P.C. for impleading them as a necessary party which has been rejected by learned Court by order dated 10.11.2022 contained in Annexure-4. He submits that thereafter further application was filed under Order I Rule 10 of C.P.C. for impleadment which has been allowed by the learned Court without considering that aspect of the matter that earlier the same petition was rejected. He submits that in view of that the second petition was barred by principles of res judicata. 2025:JHHC:11349 --3-- C.M.P. No. 726 of 2023 4. Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties opposes the prayer and submits that in the first petition the documents with regard to the purchase of the land has not been annexed and in view of that the said has been dismissed and it was not on merit. He submits that the said documents have been annexed with the second petition and considering all these aspects the learned Court has passed the said order. He submits that there is no illegality in the order. 5. It is an admitted position that earlier the petition dated 22.12.2022 was filed under Order I Rule 10 of CPC which has been rejected by the learned Court considering that nothing has been brought on the record to suggest that the interveners are necessary party with regard to the land in question. Subsequently, annexing the documents like sale deed and others the petition has been filed which has been allowed by the learned Court considering that interveners are the necessary party as they are purchasers of the suit land. 6. The learned Court while allowing the said petition has taken note of the fact of rejection of the earlier petition and considering that the documents were not brought on the record in the said petition and it was not on the merit. Subsequently, the documents have been brought and in view of that the petitions have been allowed. If the land in question which has been purchased by the interveners are the subject matter of the suit, the interveners are 2025:JHHC:11349 --4-- C.M.P. No. 726 of 2023 necessary party and to avoid the multiplicity of the litigation, the learned Court has rightly allowed the said petition. The Court finds that there is no illegality in the impugned order particularly considering that the documents were not brought on the record and in view of that the principles of res judicata will not apply, as such this petition is dismissed. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Sangam/