AJOY KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision by the plaintiff is directed against the order dated 8-3-1973, passed by the Munsif of Bettiah in title suit No. 81 of 1972 im-pleading the intervenes as party defendant No. 5 in the suit.

(2.) The suit was filed for declaration that the lands described in the schedule of the plaint were kaimi lands of the petitioner and that opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3 defenfants 1 to 3 (defendants 1st party) had no, right to settle the suit land with opposite party No. 4 (defendant No. 4--defendant 2nd party) and as such the said settlement in favour of defendant No. 4 is illegal and void and has not conveyed any right, title and interest in the suit lands.

(3.) The plaintiff's case in short was that he is the raiyat of village Manguraha and is in possession of the suit land since the last 30 to 32 years and ultimately those lands were settled with (him by the circle officer in. case No. 13 of 1961-62 after due enquiry and rent was fixed in his name. The further allegation was that defendant No. 4 filed an application for fixation of rent with regard to the suit lands which was registered as rent fixation case No, 148 of 1963 but the same was dismissed for default on 20-4-1965. According to the plaintiff, defendant No. 4 again applied for fixation of rent which was registered as case No. 21 of 1967-68 and rent was fixed in his name for the suit land. The plaintiff moved the Land Reforms Deputy Commissioner for cancellation of the said fixation of rent in the name of defendant No. 4 which was registered as case No. 14 of 1967-68 but the same was dismissed and in appeal the said order was affirmed. Thereafter the plaintiff served notice under Section 80, C. P. C. upon defendants 1 to 3 and thereafter filed the present suit. It appears that after service of notice of the suit on defendant No. 4, a compromise petition between the plaintiff and defendant No. 4 was filed in which defendant No. 4 admitted the claim of the plaintiff and a prayer was made therein to record a compromise. From the order sheet of the Court below it appears that the said compromise petition was filed on 6-10-1972. The order sheet further shows that on 22-11-1972 a petition was filed by plaintiff to expunge the names of defendants Nos. 1 to 3 and record the compromise. Hie order dated 28-11-1972 shows that defendant No. 4 filed a petition alleging therein that the compromise may not be recorded as It was obtained by fraud. Before any of these matters could be disposed of it appears that on 5-1-1973 the intervenor opposite party No. 5 filed an application to add him as party defendant in the suit on the allegation that he had purchased a property by a registered sale deed dated 15-12-1970 for a consideration of Rupees 3,000/- from defendant No. 4 and was put in possession and since then he has remained in possession of the suit property to the knowledge of the plaintiff and others. It has also been alleged that he has been mutated in the Sherista of the State of Bihar and though the plaintiff knew the aforesaid facts ihe deliberately did not implead the intervenor as party defendant, only with an intention to obtain a collusive and fraudulent decree. It has also been stated that the petitioner came to know for the first time on 3-1-1973 from one Bechu Behari Singh about the filing of this collusive suit and also about the filing of the collusive compromise petition in the suit. It was further stated that the intervenor is a necesary party in the suit and in his absence the suit could not proceed and that in the interest of justice and equity it requires that the intervenor should be added as party defendant. With these allegations the intervenor filed an application. A rejoinder however was filed on behalf of the plaintiff denying the allegations made by the intervenor in his petition under Order 1 Rule 10 C. P. C. The matter was heard by the court below and by the impugned order it added the intervenor as party defendant No. 5 in the suit. Relevant portion of impugned order reads thus: "So far as the compromise with defendant No. 4 is concerned there is no harm in recording the compromise. The compromise against defendant No. 4 is accordingly recorded. To 9-4-1973 in filing W. S. by defendant No. 5. The suit will proceed ex parte against defendants 1 to 3."