2025:JHHC:34870 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 346 of 2025 1. Rukmani Devi W/o Late Pandu Oraon 2. Asha Kumari 3. Khusi Kumari 4. Anu Kumari S.No.2 to 4 are daughters of Late Pandu Oraon S.No.2 to 4 are minor who are represented through their mother and natural guardian namely Rukmani Devi i.e. Petitioner No. 1 All are residents of Village-Braik Mohalla, At, P.O., P.S. & District-Gumla, at present residents of Sisai Road, At, P.O., P.S. & District-Gumla ..... .... Petitioners Versus 1. Ranthi Khariyain W/o Late Shankar Khariya 2. Ajita Kumari 3. Rita Kumari 4. Sita Kumari 5. Nisha Kumari S.No 2 to 5 are Daughters of Late Shankar Khariya 6. Ashok Baiga Kharia S/o Late Bandhan Baiga Kharia S.No.1 to 6 are residents of Baraik Mahalla, P.O., P.S. & District-Gumla 7. Punam Kerketta W/o Anil Kerketta, residents of Village-Garhtoli, P.O., P.S. & District-Gumla 8. Gandauri Minj W/o Sursang Bhagat, residents of Village-Ataria, P.O., P.S. & District-Gumla 9. Deputy Commissioner, Gumla, At, P.O., P.S. & District-Gumla 10. Karma Baiga S/o Ratia Baiga Kharia, residents of Shanti Nagar, P.O., P.S. & District-Gumla 11. Shanti Devi W/o Late Shamb Nath Baraik 12. Banti @ Abhishek Baraik S/o Late Shamb Nath Baraik 13. Rashmi Devi W/o Satis Ganjhu 14. Babli Kumari 15. Sapna Kumari 16. Masaumi Kumari 17. Muskan Kumari S.No.14 to 17 are daughters of Late Shambhunath Baraik S.No.11 to 17 are residents of Sarna Toli, P.O., P.S. & District-Gumla 18. Madhu Sudan Mishra S/o Late Baikunth Nath Mishra, resident of Ghato Bagicha, P.O., P.S. & District-Gumla 19. Lilawati Devi W/o Sardar Gurucharan Singh, residents of D.S.P. Road, Near Shishu Mandir, At, P.Ο., P.S. & District-Gumla 20. Sanicharwa Kindo S/o Late Birsa Kindo, resident of village-Chetar, P.O., P.S. & District-Gumla 21. Amitabh Pankaj S/o Late Brajkishor Mishra, residents of Pandit Mohalla, P.O.,P.S. & District-Gumla 22. Bajrang Keshri S/o Late Sushila Devi 23. Uma Devi 24.Malti Devi 25.Mina Devi 26.Rekha Devi 27. Manju Devi 2025:JHHC:34870 S.No.23 to 27 are daughters of Late Sushila Devi 28.Niraj Mishra 29.Gopi Krishna Mishra S.No.28 & 29 are sons of Late Nand Kishor Mishra 30.Punam Kumari 31.Madhu Sree S.No.30 & 31 are daughters of Late Nand Kishor Mishra S. No. 22 to 31 are residents of Pandit Muhalla, P.O., P.S. & District-Gumla … …. Opposite Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioners : Mr. Jitesh Kumar, Advocate Ms. Maya Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, AC to GP-1 For the O.P. Nos.7,8&20 : Mr. Satish Kumar Keshri, Advocate Mr. Sandip Singh Munda, Advocate For the O.P. No.18 : Mr. Amar Kr. Sinha, Advocate Mr. K.S. Nanda, Advocate Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate Fop the O.P. No. 21&29 : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate ------ Order No. 05 / Dated : 20.11.2025. 1. The substituted defendants are the petitioners and the instant civil miscellaneous petition has been filed to set aside the order of impleadment of opposite party nos. 11 to 31 by order dated 06.09.2007, 05.08.2011, 31.07.2013 and 22.06.2017 on the ground that they are bona fide purchasers and had purchased the land before filing of Title Suit No. 37 of 2004. 2. The suit has been filed by the plaintiffs for declaration of title and possession over the suit land with a further prayer that sale deed nos. 2646 and 2647 dated 01.11.2004 executed by defendant no. 1 in favour of the defendant nos. 2 and 3 be declared null and void. Further prayer has been made for declaration of sale deed no. 1313 dated 06.08.1959 executed by Rajwa Baiga and Kabla Baiga in favour of Basant Oraon and Shankar Oraon be null and void. 3. Defendant nos. 9 and 10 have been impleaded vide order dated 06.09.2007 on the ground that entire suit land was purchased in 1974 and after the said purchase in 1974, defendant nos. 9 and 10 have constructed house and they are in peaceful possession of the said land. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel on behalf of the defendant nos. 11, 12 and 13 that these defendants have also been impleaded in the suit that they had 2025:JHHC:34870 acquired right, title and interest over the suit property on the basis of registered sale deed executed by defendant no. 1 after obtaining permission from competent authority. 5. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners/ defendants that the sale deed executed in 1974 is in violation to the provision of Section 46 of the CNT Act and the interveners have been impleaded in the suit to delay the adjudication. ANALYSIS 6. This Court fails to understand how the defendant no. 1 is aggrieved by the impleadment of the intervener applicants referred to above and whether she has a locus standi to question the impleadment. Party, if any, who can claim to be prejudiced by impleadment, it is the plaintiff and not Defendant no. 1, as their impleadment cannot have any bearing on the claim of title of Defendant no.1. 7. I find force in the argument advanced on behalf of the opposite parties that so far, the question of contravention of the Section 46 of the CNT Act is concerned, it can only be decided after the parties are impleaded, pleadings are complete, issues are framed and the trial is held. To shut out the parties from being impleaded will cause prejudice to the interest of the intervener petitioners. Thus, this petition is utterly devoid of any merit. Accordingly, this civil miscellaneous petition stands dismissed with cost. Cost assessed to Rs. 5,000/-. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Pawan/ -