S. Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) Aggrieved by order dated 26.7.2011 in Title Suit No. 11 of 2010 whereby, the respondent Nos. 4 to 44 have been impleaded in the suit, the present writ petition has been filed. The petitioner is plaintiff No. 2 in Title Suit No. 11 of 2010. The plaintiff No. 2 is the son of plaintiff No. 1. The suit was filed for declaration of title of the plaintiffs over Schedule -A property and for injunction restraining the defendant from disturbing peaceful possession of the plaintiffs. In the pending suit, application dated 18.1.2011 under Order I, Rule 10 CPC was filed which has been allowed vide, order dated 26.7.2011.
(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the intervenors are not proper or necessary party in Title Suit No. 11 of 2010. If at all, they have any claim in the suit property they were required to file a separate suit seeking declaration of their right, title and interest in the property. Moreover, since the name of Krishi Bibhag, Bihar Sarkar is recorded in the Revenue Record, the intervenors were first required to issue notice under Sec. 80 CPC. On these grounds, impugned order dated 26.7.2011 has been assailed.
(3.) Per contra, Mr. Prabhash Kumar, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 to 44 submits that respondent Nos. 4 to 44 have valuable interest in the suit property. They are purchasers from the original landlord through registered sale -deed and at this stage it was sufficient for permitting the respondent Nos. 4 to 44 to contest the suit on merits.;