Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1973 (JHR)

Raghunath Yadav, S/o Kailu Yadav v. Ganesh Rout

2025-10-07

GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

body2025
JUDGMENT : Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J. Heard, learned counsel for the parties. 1. Petitioners are the intervenor applicants and are aggrieved by the order dated 25.01.2023 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)-V, Deoghar, in M.C.A. No.378 of 2022 corresponding to Title Suit No.27 of 2008 whereby and whereunder the petition under Order I Rule 10 CPC for being impleaded in the suit has been rejected by the learned Trial Court. 2. Plaintiffs/ Opp. Parties being 1 to 10 filed the suit for declaration of right, title and interest as well as for confirmation of their possession over the suit property and for declaring the order passed on 28.05.2001 to be declared null and void and for injunction restraining the defendants. 3. The suit was originally filed on 17.05.2006 being Title Suit No.44 of 2006 which was later on re-numbered as Title Suit No.27 of 2008 in which these petitioners were not impleaded as parties. 4. The issues were framed and after a lapse of more than 16 years of filing the suit, the intervenor application was filed claiming right and title over the suit property, which has been rejected by the impugned order. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the order is cryptic and does not assign any reason for rejection. The petition has been rejected only on the ground that the earlier order dated 17.11.2022 was passed for furnishing the certified copy of the Panchayat Register or the original register by the intervenor applicants, but the same had not been complied with. 6. It is further submitted that the petitioners have valid title and they will be prejudiced, if they are not impleaded in the suit. 7. Having considered the submissions advanced, this Court is of the view that no valid reason has been assigned on behalf of the petitioners for being impleaded in the suit. It is true that the impugned order is cryptic and is not a speaking order. Nevertheless, the fact of the matter remains that the plaintiffs are not seeking any relief against the petitioners. Further, after a lapse of 15-16 years of the filing of the suit, the intervenor application for being impleaded has been filed which raises serious question and bona-fide of the petitioners. Whenever a party is impleaded, he has right to file written statement for all practical purposes and consequently the trial starts de-novo. 8. Further, after a lapse of 15-16 years of the filing of the suit, the intervenor application for being impleaded has been filed which raises serious question and bona-fide of the petitioners. Whenever a party is impleaded, he has right to file written statement for all practical purposes and consequently the trial starts de-novo. 8. It is for this reason that unless, the plaintiff(s) claims any relief against any of the parties, ordinarily a party cannot be impleaded because it is the plaintiff(s) who is the dominus litis. Particularly in cases of claim of title, if party(s) in possession is not impleaded, a declaration of title cannot be given in view of the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. 9. Thus, in the present case, if the plaintiff(s) has omitted to implead the intervenor applicants in the suit, then the judgment will not be binding upon them in view of Section 41 of the Evidence Act as the judgments are in personam and not in rem in such cases. 10. Accordingly, I do not find the intervenor applicants/ petitioners to be necessary parties for adjudication of the suit, so as to be impleaded at such a belated stage. The instant CMP stands dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.