SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- S. Rajendra Babu and K.G. Balakrishnan, JJ.

Petition (s) for special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 287 of 2000. (From the judgment and order dated 29/09/1999 in CR. 214/88 of the High Court of Patna). D/d. 16.2.2001.

Sarbendra Ojha - Petitioner

Versus

Pannag Bhushan and Anr. - Respondents

For the Petitioner(s) :- P.S. Mishra, Vishnu Sharma, T. Swarupa Reddy, Upendra Mishra and Himanshu Shekhar, Advocates.

For the Respondents :- S.S. Dwivedi, Ravi Shankar Dwivedi and K.L. Taneja, Advocates.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 23 Rule 3 - Application for impleadment during pendency of title suit - Application of alleged purchaser for impleadment allowed at the time of recording compromise - Order challenged - In review, High Court deciding to let the suit proceed in respect of parties with whom there is no compromise - Purchaser filing another suit for declaration of title - Rights and titles of the parties to be thrashed either in the title suit or in the separate suit filed by the defendant.

[Para 3]

ORDER

1. This is a case of much ado about nothing.

2. In respect of certain lands a title suit in C.A. 17/97 on the file of Munsiff Buxar was instituted by the Petitioner seeking for a declaration that the disputed land had been the outcome of a Kebala of the Plaintiff and survey entry had been wrongly made and the Defendant be restrained from going over the suit land and alienating the land to anybody else.

3. Padam Bhushan Ojha @ Pannag Bhushan Ojha is claimed to have purchased the property from one Bhikheri Ahir @ Mahesh Ahir S/o Dhuri Ahir who belongs to another branch of the family of Kamal Ahir. When the suit was pending, an application for impleadment had been made by the said Padam Bhushan Ojha @ Pannag Bhushan Ojha. At the time of recording the compromise the application for impleadment was allowed and he was also made a party. That order was however challenged in a Revision Petition before the High Court. The Revision Petition was allowed deleting the name of said Padam Bhushan Ojha @ Pannag Bhushan Ojha. Subsequently however that order was reviewed by the High Court and it is made clear that suit can proceed in respect of parties with whom there is no compromise. It is brought to our notice that said Padam Bhushan Ojha has filed a separate suit in C.A. No. 79/98 for declaration of his rights and incidental reliefs against Petitioner. If that is so either in the title suit No. 17/1997 out of which the present proceedings arise or title suit No. 79/1998 the rights of the parties will have to be thrashed out. So, whether the said Padam Bhushan Ojha @ Pannag Bhushan Ojha is impleaded or not is not a matter that needs to be gone into in these proceedings. Hence we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the High Court. It would be appropriate for the trial Court to take up the suits together for trial. If the parties so desire they may file additional pleadings in the suits as is permissible under law. The special leave petition is disposed of accordingly.

.