( 2026:JHHC:15155 ) pg. 1 C.M.P. No. 1091 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 1091 of 2024 1. Subodh Kumar, aged about 55 years son of Late Rampati Pandit. 2. Shanti Devi aged about 75 years wife of Late Rampati Pandit Both residents of Raja Bangla, Jhumri Telaiya, PO: Jhumri Telaiya, PS: Telaiya, District Koderma (Jharkhand) .... ... ... Plaintiffs/Petitioners 1. Suresh Kumar son of Late Rampati Pandit resident of Jhumri Telaiya, Ranchi-Patna Road, PO Jhumri Telaiya, PS Telaiya, District Koderma (Jharkhand). 2. Satia Devi wife of Late Yadunandan Sao 3. Prakash Sao 4. Binesh Sao 5. Binod Sao 6. Viki Sao Nos. 2 to 6 are sons of Late Yadunandan Sao Nos. 2 to 6 are residents of Jhumri Telaiya, Ranchi-Patna Road, PO: Jhumri Telaiya, PS: Telaiya, District Koderma (Jharkhand). 7. Gidia Devi wife of Sri Lato Sao resident of village Domchanch, PS and District Koderma (Jharkkhand) 8. Kallu Sao @ Nand Kishore Sao 9. Sita Ram Sao 10. Mukund Sao Nos. 8 to10 are sons of Late Narayan Sao 11. Shanti Devi wife of Late Giridhari Sao 12. Sheo Shankar Sao 13. Papu Sao Nos. 12 and 13 are sons of late Giridhari Sao Nos. 8 to 13 are residents of Village Jhumari Telaiya, Ranchi- Patna Road, Ward No. 11, P.O. Jhumari Telaiya, P.S. Telaiya, District Koderma (Jharkhand). 14. Bimla Devi wife of Sukhdeo Sao resident of Gumla, Lohardaga Road, P.O. and P.S. Gumla, District Gumla ( 2026:JHHC:15155 ) pg. 2 C.M.P. No. 1091 of 2024 (Jharkhand). 15. Kamli Devi wife of Ram Naresh Sao resident of Village Mayapur, P.O. Mayapur, P.S. Itkhori, District Chatra. 16. Sundar Sao 17. Bijay Sao 18. Dilip Sao Nos. 16 to 18 are sons of Lilo Sao Nos. 16 to 18 are residents of Village Jhumari Telaiya, Ranchi-Patna Road, Ward No. 11, P.O. Jhumari Telaiya, P.S. Telaiya, District Koderma (Jharkhand). …. … Defendants/Opposite Parties 19. Pramod Kumar 20. Praveen Kumar Nos. 19 and 20 are sons of Rampati Pandit 21. Sunita Kumari 22. Poonam Kumari Nos. 21 and 22 are daughters of Rampati Pandit Nos. 19 to 22 are residents of Raja Bangla, Jhumri Telaiya, P.O. Jhumri Telaiya, P.S. Telaiya, District Koderma (Jharkhand) ... Substituted Plaintiffs/Proforma Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Altamas Khan, Advocate; Mr. Sanjay Kr. Pandey, Advocate ------ PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with the prayer to quash the order dated 04.10.2023 passed by the Munsif, Koderma in Title Suit No. 25 of 2008 by which the application filed by the opposite party No.1 of this CMP for being impleaded as ( 2026:JHHC:15155 ) pg. 3 C.M.P. No. 1091 of 2024 intervenor in the said Title Suit has been allowed. The opposite party no.1 of this Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been arrayed as defendant no.4 in the said Title Suit 3. In this Civil Miscellaneous Petition further prayer has been made for quashing the consequential order dated 15.3.2024 passed by the Civil Judge Junior Division Munsiff, Koderma framing additional issues in relation to grant of relief to the defendant No.4 as contained in Annexure-8 to this Civil Miscellaneous Petition and also for quashing the consequential order dated 14.8.2024 passed by the said Civil Judge Junior Division by which the learned Civil Judge Junior Division has allowed the prayer of the defendant no.4 of the said Suit to cross- examine the witnesses of the plaintiff in exercise of the power under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are respectively the plaintiff no. 2 and plaintiff no.1 of the said Title Suit no. 25 of 2008. The said Title Suit No. 25 of 2008 was filed by the petitioner no.2 herein as plaintiff no.1 and her husband Rampati Pandit as plaintiff no.2. The undisputed fact remains that after death of Rampati Pandit during pendency of the said Title Suit No. 25 of 2008 the legal representatives of Rampati Pandit through his second wife who is plaintiff no.1, namely, Shanti Devi, have been substituted as plaintiff no.2 to 2/d in the said plaint. The undisputed fact remains that the opposite party no.1 herein who has been impleaded as defendant no.4 is the son of Rampati Pandit through his first wife, namely, Bhagwati Devi. ( 2026:JHHC:15155 ) pg. 4 C.M.P. No. 1091 of 2024 5. The Title Suit No. 25 of 2008 has been filed with the prayer for declaration of title of plaintiff no.1 of the Suit and confirmation of her possession and consequential reliefs. The opposite party no.1 of this Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed a petition under Order I Rule 10 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure stating that since he is the son of Rampati Pandit he may be impleaded as plaintiff. By the impugned order dated 04.10.2023 in the said Title Suit no. 25 of 2008 the learned Munsif considered the claim of the said intervenor Opposite Party No.1 herein that he is the son of Rampati Pandit has remained uncontroverted, hence, the opposite party no.1 of this Civil Miscellaneous Petition is the necessary party for adjudication of the Suit and his impleading in the suit is necessary to avoid multiplicity of the litigation in future and allowed the said petition and arrayed the intervenor as defendant no.4. After filing of the written statement by the defendant no.4, vide order dated 15.3.2024, the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Koderma passed an order for framing of additional issues and also allowed the defendant no.4 to cross-examine the witnesses of the plaintiff vide the order dated 14.8.2024 in the said Title Suit no. 25 of 2008. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the plaintiff no.1 is claiming title over the suit land by way of registered deed of gift executed by her father-in-law late Ganauri Pandit which was self acquired property of late Ganauri Pandit; over which the defendants are laying false claim. It is next submitted that Partition Suit No. 48 of 2015 has already been filed by the said opposite party no.1 defendant ( 2026:JHHC:15155 ) pg. 5 C.M.P. No. 1091 of 2024 no.4 against the plaintiff of Title Suit No. 25 of 2008. Hence it is submitted that the prayer as made in the CMP be allowed. 7. The learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 1 to 18 submits that since the undisputed fact remains that the opposite party no.1 defendant no.4 is the son of Rampati Pandit so in order to enable the Court to effectually and concretely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the Suit, he is the necessary party to the Suit. Therefore, no illegality has been committed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Koderma in arraying the intervenor as defendant no.4. 8. So far as the impugned order dated 15.3.2024 is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party that the plaintiff petitioners have the remedy under Order XIV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure for approaching the Court concerned for recasting of the issues if they are of the opinion that the issues are not proper but having not done so, it is not open for them to question the same before this Court invoking the jurisdiction of this court under article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. 9. In respect of the impugned order dated 14.8.2024 it is submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that since the intervenor has already been arrayed as defendant and he has filed his written statement, no illegality has been committed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Koderma in permitting the defendant no.4 to cross- examine the witnesses or else he will be deprived of reasonable opportunity to put forth his case and to demolish the testimony of the witnesses of the plaintiffs. Hence, it is submitted that this Civil Miscellaneous Petition being devoid of the merit be dismissed. ( 2026:JHHC:15155 ) pg. 6 C.M.P. No. 1091 of 2024 10. Having heard the submissions made at Bar and after going through the materials on record, it is pertinent to mention here that the undisputed fact remains that the defendant no.4 is the son of Rampati Pandit through his first wife. The plaintiff no.1 in the Suit is claiming title in respect of the suit property on the basis of the gift deed executed by the grandfather of the defendant no.4 in favour of the plaintiff no.1. 11. It is pertinent to mention here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mumbai International Airport Private Limited Vs. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Private Limited and Others, reported in (2010) 7 SCC 417 in para -15, has laid down the law as to who is a necessary party and who is a proper party to a suit which reads as under: - “15. A “necessary party” is a person who ought to have been joined as a party and in whose absence no effective decree could be passed at all by the court. If a “necessary party” is not impleaded, the suit itself is liable to be dismissed. A “proper party” is a party who, though not a necessary party, is a person whose presence would enable the court to completely, effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all matters in dispute in the suit, though he need not be a person in favour of or against whom the decree is to be made. If a person is not found to be a proper or necessary party, the court has no jurisdiction to implead him, against the wishes of the plaintiff. The fact that a person is likely to secure a right/interest in a suit property, after the suit is decided against the plaintiff, will not make such person a necessary party or a proper party to the suit for specific performance.” 12. Now coming to the facts of the case the defendant no.4 has grievance to raise in the suit denying the relief to be granted to the plaintiffs as prayed for in the suit. His relationship being the grandson of the donor of the suit land to the plaintiff no.1 of the suit is not in dispute. Under such admitted facts of the case unless the opposite party no.1 is arrayed as a party to the Suit, he will be deprived of the opportunity of ( 2026:JHHC:15155 ) pg. 7 C.M.P. No. 1091 of 2024 being heard and his rights may be affected by the ultimate decree to be passed and it may also lead to multiplicity of litigation. Therefore this court has no hesitation in holding that the opposite party no.1 is a person whose presence would enable the court to completely, effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all matters in dispute in the suit. Therefore, the opposite party no.1 is at least a proper party to the suit. Under such circumstance, the learned Civil Judge Junior Division having impleaded the intervenor as defendant no.4 the vide the impugned order, the said impugned order so far as it relates to impeding the intervenor as defendant no.4 does not warrant interference of this Court in exercise of the power vested upon this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, with the said order. 13. Accordingly, the prayer to quash the impugned order dated 4.10.2023 passed in the said Title Suit No. 25 of 2008, being without any merit is dismissed. 14. So far as the impugned order dated 15.3.2024 is concerned, by the said order the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Koderma has framed some additional issues. According to plaintiff the said issues are not necessary and uncalled for and do not relate to question in controversy between the parties; in the suit. It is pertinent to mention here that under Order XIV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure the trial court is vested with the power for amending or striking out the issues. 15. Hence, the plaintiff has the remedy to file appropriate application before the Civil Judge Junior Division, Koderma for either amending or striking out some issues. Having not done so and having straightway approached this court at this belated stage when the evidence ( 2026:JHHC:15155 ) pg. 8 C.M.P. No. 1091 of 2024 of the plaintiff has already been closed and some of the witnesses of the defendants have already been examined, this court is of the considered view that there is no justifiable reason to interfere with the said order dated 14.8.2024 in exercise of its power and it is left open to the Civil Judge Junior Division, Koderma to exercise the power under Order XIV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure at appropriate stage if it so thinks proper. 16. So far as the impugned order dated 14.8.2024 is concerned, since the intervenor has already been arrayed as defendant no.4 and he has filed his written statement; so, permitting him to cross-examine two of the witnesses of the plaintiff in the considered opinion of this court is fair and proper else the defendant no.4 will be deprived of the opportunity of properly contesting the Title Suit No. 25 of 2008. 17. Hence, this Court do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the said impugned order dated 14.8.2024. Accordingly, the prayer to quash the impugned order dated 14.8.2024 being without any merit is dismissed. 18. In view of the discussions made above, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition is disposed of accordingly. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Dated: 14.05.2026 Uploaded: 18.05.2026 KNR /Cp.03