2025:JHHC:36367 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 907 of 2025 1. Vikki Kharia 2. Sanjay Kharia 3. Mahali Kharia All sons of Late Shanichar Kharia, resident of DSP Road Baraik Mohalla Gumla, P.O. & P.S. Gumla, District-Gumla. ..... .... Petitioners Versus 1. Sanjay Kharia son of Late Etwa Kharia 2. Dinesh Kharia son of Late Etwa Kharia 3. Sita Devi W/o Durga Kharia 4. Santosh Kharia S/o Durga Kharia 5. Bahuro Devi W/o Binod Kharia 6. Sujit Kharia (now major) son of Binod Kharia O.P. No. 1 to 6 are resident of Baraik Mohalla, Gumla, P.O. & P.S. Gumla, District-Gumla. 7. Bhinsari @ Bhondi Khariain W/o Churku Kharia 8. Chhotu Kharia @ Mote Kharia S/o Hinju Kharia 9. Angani Khariain W/o Binai Kharia 10. Sudhir Kharia son of Late Binai Kharia O.P. No. 7 to 10 are resident of Baraik Mohalla, Gumla, P.O. & P.S. Gumla, District-Gumla 11. Ramje Oraon S/o Sri Eliyas Oraon, resident of village-Pugu, P.O. & P.S. Gumla, District-Gumla. 12. Secretary of Saraswati Ucch Vidayalaya, DSP Road Gumla, P.O. & P.S. Gumla, District-Gumla. … …. Opposite Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioners : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate For the O.P. Nos. 9-10 : Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Advocate For the O.P. Nos. 12 : Mr. Srijit Choudhary, Advocate Mr. Aayush Ojha, Advocate ------ Order No. 03 / Dated : 03.12.2025. The instant civil miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 23.06.2025, passed in Partition Suit, no.28/2006 by which intervenor application filed under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC has been rejected 2. Learned Trial Court rejected the petition for impleadment on the ground that the suit was filed in the year 2006, whereas intervenor application was filed in 2025. Further, there was no supporting document to show that Sanichar Kharia was the son of Thepai Kharia. On the contrary, voter list was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs to show that Sanichar Kharia was son of Garja Kharia. 3. Petitioners claim that their father Sanichar Kharia was the son of Thepai Kharia, whereas the case of the plaintiffs is that Thepai Kharia died issueless. 4. Petitioners filed intervenor application on 15.01.2025 claiming to be the 2025:JHHC:36367 heirs and descendants of the common ancestors Bechan Pujar. 5. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners that voter identity card (Annexure-5) of Sanichar Kharia shows that he was the son of Thepai Kharia. Further, in the voter list also he has been shown to be son of Thepai Kharia. 6. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the plaintiffs, and rightly so, that the documents are sought to be introduced at this stage is post litum motam. The suit was filed in the year 2006, whereas voter list is of the year 2022-23 and the voter identity card was made in 2010. 7. The object of Order I Rule 10 CPC is not to change the scope or character of the suit by addition of new parties and to enable them to litigate their own independent claims but simply to hold them to avoid unnecessary litigation which might otherwise become necessary. The provisions of Rule 10(2) confer very wide powers on the Court regarding joining of the parties. Such powers have to be exercised on sound judicial principles keeping in mind all the facts and circumstances of the case. Two considerations must guide judicial discretion while exercising power under this provision. First is that the plaintiff is the dominus litis and he is best judge of his interest. It is therefore for him to choose his opponent from whom he claims relief and, normally, the Court should not compel him to fight against a person whom he does not want to fight and from whom he does not claim any relief; and secondly if he is satisfied that the presence of any person is necessary to effectively and completely adjudicate all the disputes between the parties, irrespective of the wishes of the plaintiff, the Court may exercise power and join a person as party to the suit. 8. Considering the grounds taken by the learned Trial Court that there was delay of about 20 years in filing intervenor application, and that in the voter list filed before the learned trial Court, Sanichar Kharia was shown to be the son of Thepai Kharia, this Court is not inclined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the impugned order. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition stands dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Pawan/ - Uploaded 05.12.2025