Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 487 (PAT)

Guneshwar Prasad v. State Of Bihar

2000-03-28

S.N.PATHAK

body2000
Judgment 1. This revision is directed against the order dated 21.7.99 passed by the Learned Munsif, Khagaria in Title Suit No.1 of 1997. 2. The relevent facts are that the plaintiffs-revisionists filed a T.S. No. 1 of 1997 against the original defendants who were State of Bihar and Block Development Officer, Choutham, seeking an injunction against them from interfering with the possession of the suit property by the plaintiffs and from carrying any demolition of his boundary wall in order to construct a road. The State of Bihar appeared and fifed show cause against the prayer of injunction and it was averred that road was being constructed through the land of the plaintiff and the injunction matter was, accordingly, disposed of. Some witnesses were examined on behalf of the plaintiffs and when the 3rd witness was produced for examination, suddenly opposite parties no.3 and 4 appeared and filed a petition that they should be added as party to the suit in the representative capacity because the suit land was gairmajarua aam land over which the general public has right. 3. On perusal of the impugned order, I find that the learned Munsif directed opposite party nos. 3 and 4, Naresh Prasad Badai and Chandrashekhar Prasad, to be added as a party to the suit on their plea that their presence in the suit shall disclose many other facts and it will not prejudice the case of the plaintiffs. It transpires that the learned Munsif disposed of the petition of intervenor defendants without stating any clear terms as to how the intervenors had any interest in the suit property and as to how their addition as a party to the suit would be necessary to decide the controversy in the suit and the rights and interest of the parties who were originally in the suit. Already the State of Bihar was a party to the suit and if any gairmajrua aam land is claimed by any person, the State of Bihar has the right and legal entity to oppose this claim. Two persons cannot claim themselves to represent the entire community simply because they claim to be so. Morever, the plaintiff had claim that they were in possession of the suit land after taking settlement from the ex-landlord. Two persons cannot claim themselves to represent the entire community simply because they claim to be so. Morever, the plaintiff had claim that they were in possession of the suit land after taking settlement from the ex-landlord. The name of their ancestor Madhu Mandal was recorded in the serista of the ex-landlords over an area of 1 bigha and 7 katha and the rent receipt was issued. The plaintiff had acquired the suit land by partition among the heirs of Madhu Mandal. They had constructed the house and they had also built boundary wall around their house. They also donated some portion of the original land acquired by Madhu Mandal to the Governor of Bihar. 4. From the aforesaid fact, it is apparent that the State of Bihar which is stated to be the owner of the gairmajarua aam land after abolition of Zamindary would be the right legal entity to protect the interest of the entire community regarding public right etc. So, the addition of opposite party nos.3 and 6 was not at all necessary. The plaintiff of particular suit cannot be compelled to implead all Toms, Dicks, and Herry as party to a particular suit. Moreover, the appearance of opposite party nos. 3 and 4 after the suit had already proceeded for hearing was also not necessary and in the impugned order the learned Munsif has failed to assign plausible and cogent reason as to why and how he is adding those persons as a party to the suit. The order is a cryptic one so far as it relates to the addition of these persons as party to the suit. The learned Munsif has referred to the plea of the persons to the effect that addition of the persons would throw out certain more facts to facilitate decision in the suit. This plea of opposite parties no. 3 and 4 was not enough to weigh with the lower court to add them as party, rather new facts likely to be thrown open in the suit might complicate the same. 5. In the result, I do not think, the impugned order is sustainable. 6. It is, accordingly, set aside.