M.Y.Iqbal, J. - (1.) This revision application is directed against the order dated 11/4/2002 passed by Sub-Judge III, Bermo at Tenughat in Title Suit No 7/98 whereby he has allowed the petition filed on behalf of th0e Intervenor/ Opposite party No. 1 under Order 1, Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the CPC.
(2.) Plaintiffs who are opposite parties No. 2 to 12 filed the aforementioned suit for declaration of title and for recovery of possession of the suit property. In the said suit, intervenor, Govind Mahto filed application for impleading him as party in the suit. The case of the intervenor is that he is the son of Shyam Lal Mahto who is settlee of the land alongwith his brother Ram Lal Mahto and both the brothers exercised their right title and possession jointly and they jointly paid rent to the ex-landlord. In 1947 a dispute arose between the aforesaid two brothers which was alleged to have been amicably settled by executing panchnama. The said application was opposed by the palintiffs by filing rejoinder. The Court below came to a prima facie finding that the intervenor appears to have interest in the property and the dispute with regard to title is also involved in the suit because he is admittedly lega heirs of late Shyam Lal Mahto, full brother of late Ram Lal Mahto.
(3.) The object of Order 1, Rule 10 of the CPC is to bring before the Court all the persons who are parties to the dispute relating to issue in a position to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. In the instant case, it appears that intervener who is admittedly heir of Shyam Lal Mahto claims that property was jointly held and possessed by Ram Lal Mahto with his brother Shyam Lal Mahto and he has interest in the property. The Court below therefore rightly held that the intervenor appears to be a necessary party and his alleged claim of interest in the property is to be determined in the same suit. The impugned order therefore does not suffer from any illegality and needs no interference.;