- (1.) THE present writ petition has been preferred against the order passed by the Sub -Judge -4th, Giridih dated 4th January, 2011 in Title Suit No. 173 of 1994 whereby, the application preferred by the present petitioner, to be joined as party defendant in the aforesaid title suit, has been rejected.
(2.) HAVING heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I hereby quash and set aside the order passed by the Sub -Judge -4th, Giridih dated 4th January, 2011 in Title Suit No. 173 of 1994 for the following facts and reasons: (i) The present petitioner is plaintiff, who has instituted Title Suit No. 64 of 2006 and he is claiming ownership of the property, in question. (ii) In Title Suit No. 64 of 2006, which is instituted by the petitioner, the present respondents are defendants. (iii) It appears from the facts of the case that the present respondents have also instituted Title Suit No. 173 of 1994, wherein, the present petitioner has not been joined as party defendant. (iv) It further appears that as the petitioner is directly interested in tile suit property, he had preferred an application for joining as party defendant in Title Suit No. 173 of 1994. (v) The suit property involved in both the aforesaid title suits, namely, Title Suit No. 64 of 2006 as well as Title Suit No. 173 of 1994, wherein, some of the properties are common and thus, the present petitioner has direct interest in the outcome of the Title Suit No. 173 of 1994, instituted by the respondents. Thus, in view of these facts, to arrive at a correct decision of the dispute between the parties, the present petitioner ought to have been joined as party defendant. (vi) Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has contended that after long lapse of time, such an application has been preferred by the present petitioner for joining as party defendant. The suit i.e. Title Suit No. 173 of 1994 has travelled much ahead and it is at its advance stage. This contention is not accepted by this Court mainly for the following reasons: (a) It appears that, deliberately, the present respondents have not joined the present petitioner as party defendant in Title Suit No. 173 of 1994. (b) The present petitioner has instituted Title Suit No. 64 of 2006, wherein, the present respondents are party defendants. (c) It appears that, deliberately, the present respondents have not pointed out that they have also instituted Title Suit No. 173 of 1994 and they have not joined the petitioner as party defendant. The petitioner is also claiming possession upon the suit property. Despite these facts were known to the respondents, for some obvious reasons, the present petitioner was not joined as party defendant. (d) Moreover, looking to the suit property involved in both the" suits. i.e. Title Suit No. 64 of 2006 as well as Title Suit No. 173 of 1994, it appears that there are certain properties, which are common. The present petitioner is vitally interested in the outcome of the Title Suit No. 173 of 1994 and, therefore, he ought to be joined as party defendant. Whatever delay has been caused, has been caused by the present respondents, who are original plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 173 of 1994. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, I hereby quash and set aside the order passed by the Sub -Judge -4th, Giridih dated 4th January, 2011 in Title Suit No. 173 of 1994, which is at Annexure -6 to the memo of the petition and the petitioner is permitted to join as party defendant in Title Suit No. 173 of 1994.
(3.) THE petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent.;