IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 880 of 2024 Smt. Sangita Devi, aged about 48 years, wife of Dharmanand Jha, resident of Sardar Panda Lane, at Deoghar Town, P.O. Baidyanath Temple, P.S. Baba Mandir Temple, District- Deoghar (Jharkhand) … Petitioner -Versus- 1. Suraj Charan Mishra, S/o Late Sushil Charan Mishra, resident of Kali Mandir Campus, at Mohalla- Hanuman Tikri, Deoghar Town, P.O. B. Deoghar, P.S. & District- Deoghar 2. Smt. Soni Mishra, W/o Suraj Charan Mishra, resident of Kali Mandir Campus, at Mohalla- Hanuman Tikri, Deoghar Town, P.O. B. Deoghar, P.S. & District- Deoghar 3. Priyanka Kumari Mishra, D/o Suraj Charan Mishra, resident of Kali Mandir Campus, at Mohalla- Hanuman Tikri, Deoghar Town, P.O. B. Deoghar, P.S. & District- Deoghar … Opposite Parties ----- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Parties : ----- 04/16.01.2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying therein to set aside the order dated 24.02.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division-VII in MCA No.461 of 2023 arising out of Original (Declaration) Suit No.274/2021, whereby, the petition filed under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC has been allowed by the learned Court. 3. Mr. Vikash Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said suit was instituted for declaration and appointment of the plaintiff as Honorary Chief Priestess/ Pujaran of Hanuman Tikri Maan Kali Temple and Hanuman Jee Temple for performing daily Puja-Path in the same under her supervision, guidance, knowledge, direction and control over the same by managing each and every affair of the said Temples. By way of inviting C.M.P. No. 880 of 2024 -1- attention of the Court to the impugned order, he submits that the learned Court has fixed the matter as ex-parte and in spite of that, at the fag end of conclusion of trial, the said petition was allowed, which is illegal. He submits that in view of that, the said order may kindly be set aside. 4. The learned Court has found that the intervenors are the heirs of the defendant Suraj Charan Mishra and due to non-appearance of the defendant, the suit was posted for ex-parte proceeding. The aforesaid suit was filed for declaration and appointment as honorary chief priestess/ pujaran. The learned Court found that the intervenors are heirs of the defendant, who had filed some documents particularly the last will of Late Sushil Charan Mishra, who was the father of the plaintiff. In that will, he has stated that he was the Shebait of Maa Kali Temple and Hanuman Jee Temple and after his death, his daughter in law Soni Mishra and grand daughter Priyanka Kumari will remain Shebait and considering that the intervenors are heirs of the defendant-Suraj Charan Mishra, the said petition was allowed. If such situation was there, the learned Court has rightly passed the impugned order on the petition filed under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC. It is for the Court to decide whether any party is necessary in the suit or not and that discretion is there with the Court. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts, there is no illegality in the impugned order and, as such, this petition is, hereby, dismissed. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Ajay/ C.M.P. No. 880 of 2024 -2-