Sujit Narayan Prasad,J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against order dated 30.08.2013 passed in Title Suit No. 230 of 2012 by Civil Judge (Senior Division) - VII, Civil Court, Deoghar whereby and whereunder petition filed by the Respondent No.3 under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been allowed.
(2.) The brief facts of the case which are required to be enumerated herein for proper adjudication of the lis read hereunder as :- The petitioner has filed a declaratory Title Suit being Title Suit No. 230 of 2012 for declaration that the plaintiff is absolute owner of the Schedule 'A' property and for a decree of recovery of possession of Schedule 'B' property if during pendency of the suit the plaintiff is dispossessed by the defendant. After filing of the suit, notices were issued upon the defendants and at that juncture, a petition was filed by Respondent No.3 under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure claiming herself to be Sabaiyat and Pujari of Kodwa Math premises consisting temples of Lord Kodeshwar Nath Mahadeo, Lord Dudheshwar Nath Mahadeo and Lord Baiju. She, by taking the stand in the aforesaid application, has claimed herself to be the necessary party for adjudication of the lis as because according to her, the suit land was settled in favour of the deity since last more than 80 years and as such, being Sabaiyat and Pujari she has got valid right and interest and, therefore, in her absence the adjudication of the suit is not proper. The plaintiff filed rejoinder to the aforesaid application disputing her claim. The trial court, after appreciating the stand taken by the parties, allowed the application filed under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure vide order dated 30.08.2013 which has been challenged by the petitioner/plaintiff under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) Mr. Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has assailed the aforesaid order, inter alia on the ground that the Respondent No.3 could not be able to establish before the trial court about her title and as such she cannot be a necessary party for adjudication of the lis but without appreciating the aforesaid aspect of the matter, the trial court has allowed the aforesaid application by impleading her as party to the proceeding and, therefore, the said order is not sustainable in the eye of law. He further submits that merely by making reference about the title by taking the plea that the suit land was settled in favour of deity 80 years ago, cannot be construed to be prima facie case for establishing any interest which warranted the trial court to allow the petition filed under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.;