-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 521 of 2022 Dinesh Prasad Yadav, aged about 42 years, son of Late Mangru Mahto, resident of Village Sarmul, P.O. Rohini, P.S. Jasidih, District Deoghar, Jharkhand. ..... … Petitioners Versus 1. Jhaksu Mahto son of Late Aghnu Mahto, resident of Village Malghaghar, P.O. Ghormara, P.S. Mohanpur, District Deoghar, Jharkhand. 2. Purni Devi wife of Jago Raut, daughter of Late Kodo Mahto, resident of Village Kalyanpur, P.O. Satsang, P.S. Deoghar (Town), District Deoghar, Jharkhand. 3. Babita Devi (wrongly mentioned in impugned order as Balita Devi) wife of Late Sheija Yadav @ Late Suresh Yadav. 4. Vikash Yadav minor son of Late Shelja Yadav @ Late Suresh Yadav. 5. Sikandar Yadav minor son of Late Shelja Yadav @ Late Suresh Yadav. Sl. Nos. 4 and 5, both are represented through their mother/natural guardian i.e. respondent no.3 Babita Devi. Sl. Nos. 3 to 5, all are residents of Village Malghaghar, P.O. Ghormara, P.S. Mohanpur, District Deoghar, Jharkhand. 6. Rukmani Devi wife of Paltu Marik, daughter of Late Mangru Mahto, resident of Village Bishanpur, P.O. Deopura, P.S. Jasidih, District Deoghar, Jharkhand. 7. Sumitra Devi wife of Karu Yadav, daughter of Late Mangru Mahto, resident of Village Pathalchapti (Ammatilha), P.O. Bhojpur, P.S. Devipur, District Deoghar, Jharkhand. ..... … Opposite Parties -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, Advocate. ------ -2- 16/ 17.03.2025 Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. 2. Notice upon opposite parties has been validly served and with a view to provide one more opportunity to them, the matter was adjourned on 06.03.2025, in spite of that nobody has responded on behalf of the opposite parties on repeated calls, that’s why, this petition is being heard in absence of opposite parties. 3. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, wherein prayer has been made for setting aside the order dated 29.07.2022, passed in Original Suit No. 275 of 2014, by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)-IX, Deoghar, whereby, the petition filed under Order-I Rule-10 of the CPC to intervene in the matter on behalf of defendant Nos. 3 to 5 has been allowed by the learned court. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned court has wrongly allowed the said petition saying that the opposite parties herein are the co-parcener of the property in question. He submits that the said petition was filed on the strength that they have been adopted by one Kewalashi Mahtowain. He further submits that the said adoption was challenged in Title Suit No. 327 of 1997 and by the judgment dated 07.07.2010, the said adoption deed was cancelled, which was challenged by the opposite parties in Title Appeal No. 34 of 2010 and the said appeal was dismissed by the judgment dated 04.10.2019. He submits that only on the ground of adoption again, the said petition has been filed under Order-I Rule-10 of the CPC, which has been allowed by the learned court, as such, the said order is not in accordance with law. 5. In view of the above, the court finds that the learned court has found that they are the necessary parties, as the contentions have been made of adoption. It transpires that earlier the said adoption was challenged in Title Suit No. 327 of 1997 and by the judgment dated 07.07.2010, the said adoption deed was cancelled, which was -3- challenged by the opposite parties in Title Appeal No. 34 of 2010 and the said appeal was also dismissed by the judgment dated 04.10.2019 and the same is admitted fact and how the opposite parties are said to be interested in the property is the question to be decided and the learned court has found them as a co-parceners that is not the fact. 6. In view of the that, the order dated 29.07.2022, passed in Original Suit No. 275 of 2014, by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)-IX, Deoghar, whereby, the petition filed under Order-I Rule-10 of the CPC to intervene in the matter on behalf of defendant Nos. 3 to 5 has been allowed by the learned court, is hereby, set aside. The matter is remitted back to the learned court to pass a fresh order after considering two of the judgments with regard to the adoption deed. 7. The petition filed under Order-I Rule-10 of the CPC is restored to decide the same afresh. 8. This petition is allowed and disposed of in the above terms. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Amitesh/-