( 2025:JHHC:11339 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 354 of 2025 M/s M.M. Bhadani & Brothers represented through one of the partner Krishna Mohan Bhadani, aged about 67 years, son of late Harihar Prasad Bhadani, resident of Bishrambag, Ward No. 09, New Ward No.-18, P.O. Jhumri Telaiya, P.S. Telaiya, District-Koderma …… Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Anjana Bhadani, wife of late Navin Bhadani 3. Snigdha Bhadani, daughter of late Navin Bhadani Both residents of C.H. School Road, Near Purnima Talkies, P.O. Jhumri Telaiya, P.S. Telaiya, District-Koderma 4. Smt. Heera Devi Jethawa, wife of late Khusal Chand Jethwa 5. Jatin Jethwa son of late Khusal Chand Jethwa 6. Tusar Jethwa, son of late Khusal Chand Jethwa All are resident of Nawada Basti, Bypas Road Ward No. 13, New 02, P.O. Jhumri Telaiya, P.S. Telaiya, District-Koderma. …… Opposite Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner : Mr. Anshuman Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : …….. 05/Dated: 15/04/2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 27.11.2024 passed in Eviction Suit No. 04/2010 in Civil Misc. No. 102 of 2024 pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Munsif, Koderma. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that intervener filed the petition under Order 22 Rule 3 and 4 and under Order 1 Rule 10 and Section 151 of C.P.C. before the learned court for impleadment on the ground that they are daughters and grand daughters of M.M. Bhadani and the learned court has wrongly allowed the said petition. According to him the said suit has been filed in the representative capacity by one of the partner Krishna Mohan Bhadani. He submits that the learned court has wrongly allowed the said petition and in view of that the impugned order may kindly be set aside. ( 2025:JHHC:11339 ) 4. It is an admitted position that the interveners are the daughter and grand daughter of M.M. Bhadani and seeing that aspect of the matter and further in the light of genealogical table the learned court has come to the conclusion that their presence would facilitate the complete determination of the matter in dispute. 5. The Court finds that the learned court has rightly passed the said order. There is no illegality in the impugned order. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Pending I.A, if any, stands dismissed. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Satyarthi/