ef- -~^z ft^/.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. fC) N0. 2 Glj» /2007. '^;4;.^ ^' ^fr PETITIONERS PIaintiffs 1 to 4 (1) c^/ .•••'^(y' ^^ ^)^ .••' ^•'\'J/' ? ..••\^^C/S/ \^''~y <»?• ^ ^" .<- v:''~ (2) (3) (4) •-^-" ,-co??_ v^1^ ^^ ^ VERSUS RESPONDENT/ (1) Plaintiff no. 5 Bharos Ram, S/o. Amrit Ram,Aged about - 32 years, Caste:- Kawnar Occupation Agricultural Rajendra Prasad,S/o. Amrit Ram,Aged about - 28 years, Caste:-Kawnar Occupation Agricultural Kendi Bai,W/o.- late Amrit Ram,Aged about 55 years Caste:-Kawnar Occupation Agricultural Gajendra Prasad, S/o. Amrit Ram,Aged about - 22 years, Caste:-Kawnar Occupation Agricultural All are residentce of Vilage Soor, Tehsil Sitapur, District Surguja (C.G.) Bhodaro S/o. Balam, Aged about 65 years, Cast Kawanar, Occupation RESPONDENT/ DEFENDANT (2a) Agricultural, R/o.- Village Soor, Tehsil Sitapur, District Surguja (C.G.) Mus. Bilai W/o,- late Andha Aged about 75 years (2b) Sukhnath S/o. late Andha Aged about 50 years (2c) Sahadram S/o. late Andha Aged about 47 years All are by cast Kawanar Occupation Agriculture, R/o.- Village Soor Tehsil Sitapur, District Surguja (C.G.) (2d) Smt. Sivatiya, w/o. Jorsai D/o. Late Andha, Aged about 55 years, by caste Kawanar, Occupation House work R/o.- Village Mangari, Tehsil Sitapur, District Surguja (C.G.) (2e) Smt. Radhapati W/o.- Jagbir, D/o. Late Andha, Aged about 40 years, by caste Kawanar,0ccupation House work R/o.- Village ^ ^^ Duyna.vb^a^1^ .Domarltola, Tehsil Sitapur, District Surguja (C.G.) (3) The State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Surguja Ambikapur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI ETC. PETITiONERS RESPONDENTS HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH': BiLASPUR WRIT PETIT!ON (C) N0.2616 OF 2007 Bharos Ram & Others Versus Shodaro & Others (Writ Petition under Article 227 ofthe Constitutionof Ihdia) Single Bench : Hon'bl&Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. Present:- Shri Rahui Mishra, Adyocate for the petitioners. None fcr the respondents No.1 & 2 (a) to 2 (e). Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, Panei Lawyer forthe State. ORDERfORAU (Passed on this 15tt day of February, 2011) Heard iearned counse! for the parties. The iearned trial Court has rejected the ptaintifls'/petitioners' appiication under Order 1 Ruie 10 (5) read With Section 151 of the Code of Civi! Procedure, 1908 (for short "theC.P.C."). 3. The plaintiffs had moved the aforesaid application for deleting the name of piaintiff No.5 Bhodaro from the list of plaintiffs and to make him as defendant No.3 in the suit, as said Bhodaro has turned hostiie towards the remaining piaintiffs No.1 to 4 and has fiied an afUdavit in favour of the defendants. The application was captioned to have been made underOrder 1 Ruie 10(5) readwithSection 151 ofthe C.P.C. 4. The tria! Court has rejected the applicatiori after obseroing that the provislons contained in Order 1 Ruie 10 (5) does not contain any such provision,as has been prayedfor bythe plaintlffs. 5. The power and jurisdiction of transposition of the party to the suit is available under Order 1 Rule 10 (1) (2) of the C.P.C. Itis the settled law that mere mentioning of wrong provision does not oust the jurisdiction of the Court to consider the prayer. 6. in view of foregoing, the impugned order dated 19-10-2006 (Annexure P/5) passedby the Thlrd Civil Judge Ciass-11 Ambikapur in Civi! Suit No.75-A/2005 is set aside and the iearned tria! Court is dlrectedto consider the applteation ofthe piaintiffs/petitioners on merit and pass order thereon, in accordance with law. 7. In the resuit, the writ petition is aiiowed to the above extent. No order asto costs. gowr Sd//- prashantKumarMishra Judge