IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petitiorg@ No. 7 Ll/L 12009 PETITIONER Jai Prakash Agrawal S/o. Shri Ram Kumarv Agrawal, Aged about 44 years, R/o. Danipara, Raigarh, Distt.— Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS / l. Gupta, S/o. Late Shri Madhuram Gupta, \aged about 50 years, profession — Business, R/o. Goshala Road, Raigarh, Distt.— / Raigarh (C.G.) 2. (Mahavir Gupta S/o. Late Purushottam Das Gupta C/o. M/s. Bunty Motors friends COlony, Near MCN building, Dhimrapu, Kotra Road by pass, Tahsil 85 Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF *E R INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR WRITS DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS ORDER OR ORDERS RESPONDENTS M/s.; Madhoram 85 Sons DEFENDANTS Through — Partner Santosh Kumar — I . HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (227) No. 7412/2009 PETITIONER Jai Prakash Agrawal Versus M/s. Madhoram and Sons and another SB:— HON’BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J . PRESENT :— Shri Ashish Shrivastava, Advocate, for the petitioner. Smt. Hameeda Siddiqui, Advocate for the respondents. RESPONDENTS ORAL ORDER (11-4~2011) 6, 1. Instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India calls in question orders dated 6—10—2009 upto 20— ' 10—2009 whereby legal representative of deceased partner Purushottam Das Gupta was permitted to file separate written statement and the case has been re—fixed for plaintiff’s evidence. Facts of he case in brief are as under:— t Petitioner filed a suit for eviction of respondent’s firm M/s Madhoram and sons and for arrears of rent under the provisions of the C.G, Accommodation Control Act regarding two shops and godown. Plaintiff’s evidence was closed. At this stage, one of the partners Purushottam Da Gupta died. Respondent Mahaveer Gupta filed an application under Order 1 Rule lO of C.P.C. for impleading him as party—defendant. The same was allowed. The petitioner preferred W.P. No. 6905/2007 in which vide order dated 2—9-2009 this Court clarified the order and directed for adding of said Mahaveer Gupta in his capacity as legal representative and not in his individual capacity. Thereafter the trial Court fixed the case for evidence of respondent No. 2. The petitioner s v2 moved an application under Seétion 151 of C.P.C. (Annexure‘ P—lO) inter alia on the ground the defendant No. 2 is appearing as legal representative of deceased partner Purushottam Das Gupta and not in his individual capacity and therefore, he has no right to file written statement separately, however Vide order dated 6—10- 2009, the trial Court dismissed the petitioner’s application. Thereafter written statement was filed. The trial Court having found additional issue is not necessary in the light of written statement filed by the respondent No. 2, re-fixed the case for plaintiff’s evidence. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, the petition is disposed of with the clarification that the respondent No. 2 has been impleaded in the case as legal representative of deceased partner Purushottam Das Gupta, the firm has already filed written statement based on which issues were framed and plaintiff closed his evidence. Respondent No. 2 has no independent right of defence in the case. Learned trial Court although rightly did not frame any additional issue but has committed illegality in refixing the case for plaintiff’s evidence which is not necessary and the trial Court is directed to refiX the case for defendant’s evidence as the plaintiff’s evidence has already been ’ closed. 4. The petition is disposed of with above observations. Sd/- V N. K. Agarwal Judge