Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2025:JHHC:19974
--1-- C.M.P. No. 996 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
C.M.P. No. 996 of 2023
---- Udai Shankar Jha, aged about 55 years, son of Daya Shankar Jha, Resident of Jagadamba Baliyase Path, Laxmipur Chowk, PO – B – Deoghar, PS – Deoghar (T), District – Deoghar
.... Petitioner -- Versus --
1. Sri Umakant Singh, son of Jagdish Prasad Singh, resident of Mouza – Korma, PO and PS – Warshaliganj, District – Nawada (Bihar)
2. Srikant Singh, son of Jagdish Prasad Singh, resident of Mouza – Barhe, PO – Nemdarganj, PS – Akbarpur, District – Nawada (Bihar)
3. Shri Sashi Bhushan Kumar Niraj, son of Jagdish Prasad Singh, resident of Mouza – Korma, PO and PS – Warshaliganj, District – Nawada (Bihar)
4. Anil Kumar Jha, son of Daya Shankar Jha, resident of Jagadamba Baliyase Path, Laxmipur Chowk, PO – B – Deoghar, PS – Deoghar (T), District – Deoghar
5. Prabhash Charan Mishra, son of Late Gaya Charan Mishra, Resident of Hanumantikri, Deoghar, PO – B – Deoghar, PS – Deoghar (T), District – Deoghar
6. Devta Kumar Pandey, son of Binod Kumar Pandey, resident of S.K.P. Vidya Vihar School, Bompass Town, Deoghar, PO – Deoghar, PS – Deoghar (T), District - Deoghar
.... Opposite Parties
---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioner :- Mr. Sudhanshu Kr. Deo, Advocate
For the O.Ps
:-
---- 06/21.07.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. Notice upon the opposite party Nos.1 to 6 have already been effected. With a view to provide one more opportunity to the opposite party Nos.1 to 6 the matter was adjourned on 09.06.2025 in spite of that opposite party Nos.1 to 6 have chosen not to appear and in view of that
2025:JHHC:19974
--2-- C.M.P. No. 996 of 2023
this petition is being heard in absence of opposite party Nos.1 to 6. 3. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside of the order dated 19.11.2022 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) – III, Deoghar in Misc. Civil Application No.144 of 2022 arising out of Original Suit No.38 of 2013 whereby the learned Court has been pleased to allow the petition under Order – 1 Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure filed by the intervener for adding him as one of the defendant in the suit.
4. Mr. Deo, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Original Suit No.38 of 2013 was instituted by the plaintiff for declaration of right, title and interest of the suit property and decree for cancellation of the sale deed. He submits that the said suit was pending and in the meantime the petition under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC was filed by the intervener for impleading him as party on the ground that he is the subsequent purchaser of the suit property and the learned Court has decided the same wrongly. He submits that he was not the interested party in the suit and in view of that he was not made party and the learned Court has allowed the petition which is not in accordance with law. He submits that the said property was sold to the intervener during the pendency of the suit and the sale was executed by defendant Nos.1 to 3 to the intervener/defendant Nos.5 and 6. On this ground, he submits that the impugned order may kindly be set aside. 5. From the argument of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner itself transpires that during the pendency of the said suit the property in question was purchased by the intervener/defendant Nos.5 and 6 and the learned Court considering this aspect of the matter and
2025:JHHC:19974
--3-- C.M.P. No. 996 of 2023
further to avoid the multiplicity of the litigation has been pleased to allow the same. 6. In light of Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC the Court is competent to exercise that power at any point of time if it is transpired that any person is required to be added as a party in the suit. There is no illegality in the impugned order as the intervener is said to be purchaser of the suit property itself and to avoid the multiplicity of the litigation the learned Court has rightly passed the order, as such this petition is dismissed. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Sangam/