Judgment S.N.Hussain, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is plaintiff in Title Suit No. 522 of 2002, which was filed by him for declaration that the sale deed dated 22.6.2002 was forged, fabricated and not enforceable and also for restraining the defendants from transferring the properties mentioned in Schedule-KHA of the suit and for other ancillary reliefs. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 2.12.2004 passed in the aforesaid suit, by which the learned Subordinate Judge-l, Arrah allowed the petition of the intervenor filed under Order I Rule 10 (2) read with sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code for the sake of brevity) and added opposite party No. 1 as intervenor-defendant. 4. Admittedly opposite party No. 1 (intervenor) has no right, title or possession over the suit land and his only claim is that he is a pre-emptor and had filed Ceiling Case Nos. 22/2002 and 23/2002 under the provisions of Section 16 (3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 but even the said two pre-emption cases have been dismissed by the D.C.L.R., Arrah, whereafter the intervenor-opposite party No. 1 has filed Ceiling Appeal Nos. 47/2003 and 48/2003, which are pending before the Collector, Bhojpur. Since neither the claim of pre-emption raised by the intervenor has been allowed, nor any sale deed has been executed in his favour, he has acquired no right or title in the said property. In the said circumstances, there was no occasion for impleading him as a party to the suit, which is being contested by the parties on the basis of sale deed dated 22.6.2002. This aspect of the matter has been completely ignored by the learned Court below while passing the impugned order. 5. In the aforesaid circumstances, the provisions of Order I Rule 10 (2) of the Code cannot be made applicable to the claim of the intervenor of this case and there was no occasion for including him as a party defendant, as neither he was a necessary party, nor he was a proper party for the adjudication of the suit. Hence the learned Court below committed a serious error of jurisdiction by impleading him as a party to the suit. Hence the learned Court below committed a serious error of jurisdiction by impleading him as a party to the suit. Thus, the impugned order of the learned Court below is set aside and this civil revision is allowed. 6. However, if the intervenor-opposite party No. 1 finally succeeds in his claim of pre-emption before the Ceiling Authorities, he may move before the learned Court below for being impleaded as a party to the suit and if by that time the suit is decided he can very well file a fresh suit challenging the judgment and decree of the suit in question, if he so likes.