fT FJ'0T^ A ' ET3 3T PETITIONICI N0. 4305 'ETITIONICl N0.4411/: iIT PETIT1 ^7(C1 es WRIT PETITION(C) NO.S275/3007 PETITIONER Ratan Lal Vs. RESPONDENTS Mehatarin Bai & others ^ ^ w^f\ ^y ^^Vtfa D^IS' PETITIONER RESPONDENTS -7 Vs. 1. 2. 3. 4 s. 6. 7. 9. 10. 11. 12. Ratan Lal, S/o. Late Jhuniuklal, aged about 40 years, R/'o. IQT.amhardih, Shankar Nagai', Kaipur, Tahsil and Distnct-Raipm" (C.G.j (DEFENDAIfT N0.2) Mehatarin Bai. Wd/o. SangUal Yadav, aged about 42 yeai's Seeta Bai, D/o Saiigilal Yadav, aged about 30 vears No. 1 & 2 both R/o, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Talisil and Disti-ict-Raiptu- (C.G.) Geeta Bai, D/o. Sangilal Yadav, ag'ed about. 25 yesLrs, R/o. Village- Badagaon Neai' ChandrakhmT. Fai'm, Tahsil and District-Raipm' (C.Q.) Smt. Dipta Das, W/o. Stoi Tayankai' Das, aged about 34 years, C/o. Gangotri Inclustries, R/o Shankar Nagar-Raipur, TahsU and District-Raipur (C.G.) Shaym Lal, S/o. Late Jhmiiuk Lal, aged about 38 yeai-s Nai'ad, S/o. Late Jhumuk Lal, aged about 30 vears Budhwantin Bai, D./o. Jhumuk Lal, aged about 35 vears Sughvaj.i Bai, D/o. Late .Jliumuk Lal, aged about 33 years Smt. Paraga Bai, W/o. Late Jhumuk Lal, aged about 50 years Mannu Lal, S/o Late Ram Dayal Yadav, aged about 65 years Kala 'Bai, D/o. Late Ram Dayal Yadav, aged about 44 yeai's Nirmala Bai, W/o. Late Ram. Dayal Yadav, aged about 42 veai's ^._, -J: 13. Vimla Bai, D/o. Late Ram Dayal Yadav, aged about 39 years 14. Kamla Bai, D/o. Late Raai Dayat Yadav, aged about 37 years 15. Paiicho Bai, D/o. Late Ram. Dayal, aged about 35 veai's 16. Raiigilal, S/o. Late Ram DayaS Yadav, aged about 55 years No.5 to 16 all R/o. KliaaAai'dil'1, Shaiikai' Nagar, Raipur, Tatisii aiid District- Raipur (C.G.) 17. State of Chhattisgarh. CoUectQr, Raipur (C. 0.1 through- PETITIONER RESPONDENTS 2. 3. 4. 6. 7. WRIT PETITIONfCt N0. 4410/2007 ' Rataii Lal, S/o. Late Jhi-miuklal, aged about 40 yeai's, R/o. Khamhardili, Shaiikar Nagai-, RaipLir, TAsil and District-Raipi.u' (C.G.) (DEFENDANT N0.2S Vs. 1. Wd/o. Si Yacia.v, agcd about 42 years Seeta Bai, D/o SangUal Yadav, aged about 30 vears No. 1 8. 2 both R/o. Shaiilcar Nagai', Raipur, Tahsil and Distnct-Raipur (C.G.) Geeta Bai, D/o. SaiigUal Yadav, aged about 25 years, R/o. Village- Sadagaon Near Chandrakliuri Parm, Tahsil and Disti-ict-RaipuiT i.C.G.\ Sarita Bani, aged about 30 years, TvV/o Shri Prasaiit Baiii, R/o 7, Anand Nagar, Raipiir, Tahsil and Disu-'icf- Raipm' (C.G.) Shaym Lal, S/o. Late Jhumuk Lal, aged about 38 yeai's Narad, S/o. Late Jhiunuk Lal, aged about 30 vears Budhwantin Bai, D/o. Late Jhiiniuk Lal, aged about 35 veai's h^ 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Sughvan Bai, D/o. Late Jhiu; Lal, aged about 33 years Smt. Paraga Bai, W/o. L Jhuaii.lk Lal, aged about 50 year Mannu Lal, S./o Late Rani Da Yadav, aged about 65 years Kala Bai, D/o. Late Ram Da; Yadav, aged about 44 years Nirmala Bai, W/o. Late Rara Da\ Yadav, aged about 42 yeai's Vimla Bai, D/o. Late Ram. Day Yadav, aged about 39 yeai's Kamla Bai, D./o. Late Rani Dav< Yadav, aged about 37 years Pancho Bal, D/o. Late Ram Daya- ageci about 35 vears RangU.al; S/o. Late Raai Daya Yadav, aged about 55 years 17. No.5 to 16 aU R/o. Kliamhardih, Sharikar Nagar, Raipi-u', TahsU and District- Raipur IC.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, through- Collector, Raipur (C.G.l PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Vs. 2. 3. Ratan Lal, S/o. Late Jhumuklal, aged about 40 jreai's, R/o. KhaiiihardUi, Shankar Nagar, Raipiu', Tahsil and District-Raipur (C.G.5 (DEFENDANTN0.21 Mehatarin Bai, Wd/o. Sangilal Yadav, aged about 42 yeai's Seeta Bai, D/o Saiigflal Yadav, aged about 30 years No.l &2 bothR/o. ShaiAar Nagai', Raipur, Tahsil and Distnct-Raiptu" (C.G.) Geeta Bai, D./o. Sangilal Yadav, aged about 25 years, R/o. Vfllage- Badagaon Pas Chanclrakhuri Parm, Tahsil ai-id Disti-ict-Raipm' (C.G.) 4. 5. G, 9. 10. 11. 12. 13, 14. 15. 1.6. Pi'aiiiod Kuaiai', S/o Daya Bha Chauhan, aged about 45 years, R/o. Kesla Rice Mill, Kharora, Tahsil and District - Raip-ur (C.G.) Shaym Lal, S/o. Late Jhi.m.iuk Lal, aged about 38 years Narad, S/o. Late Jhumuk Lal, aged about 30 vears Budhwantin Bai, D/o. Late Jhumuk Lal, aged about 35 yeai's SughvaiTL. Bai; D/o. Late <Jhmiii.lk Lal, aged about 33 years Smt. Paraga Bai, W/o. Late Jhumuk Lal, aged about 50 years Mannu Lal, S/o Late Rani Dayal Yadav, aged abc"'^^'ci years Kala Bai, D', vj. Late Ram Dayal Yadav, aged about 44 years Niniiala Bai, W/o. Late Rani Dayal Yadav, aged about 42 years Vimla Bai, D/o. Late Raai Dayal Yadav, aged about 39 years Kamla Bai, D/o. Late Raiii Dayal Yadav, aged about 37 yeai's Pancho Bai, D/o. Late Ram Dayal, aged about 35 yeai's Rangilal, S/o. Late Ram Dayal Yauav, ageci afciout 55 years No.5 to 16 all R/o. Khamliardih, Shaizkar Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil and District- Raiour ?C.Q.] 17. State of Chhattisgarh, CoUector, Raipm- (C.G.) throuah- PETmONER ET PETI Vs. Rataa Lal, S/o. Late Jhumuklal, aged about 40 yeai's, R/o. Faianihardih, Shankar Nagar, RaipLU', TahsU and District-Raipur (C.G.) (DEFENDANT N0.2) 4S. RESPONDENTS 1. 2. 3. 4. i>. 6. 7. 8. 9. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Mehatarin Bai, Wd/o. Sangilal Yadav, aged about 42 years Seeta Bai, D./o Saiieilal aged about 30 veai's No. 1 & 2 both R/o. Shankar Nagai', Raipur, Tahsil and District-Raipur (C.G.5 Geeta Bai, D/o. Saiisilal Yadav, aged about 25 years, R/o. VUlage- Badagaon Pas Chandrakhuri Farm; Tahsil.and Distnct-Raipur (C.G.) Devashish Das. /o Shirish Chaiiclt'a Das, aged about 72 yeai's, R/o Near Hanuinan Maadu', Sharucar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Shaym Lal, S/o. Late Jhumuk Lal, aged about 38 years Narad, S/o. Late Jhuniuk Lal, aged about 30 vears Budhwantui Bai, D/o. Late JhLUiiuk Lal, aged about 35 years Sughvan Bai, D/o. Late Jhumuk Lal, aged about 33 vears Paraga Bai, W/o. Late Jhuiii.uk Lal, aged about 50 years Mannu Lal, S/o Late Ram Dayal Yadav, aged about 65 years Kala Bai, D/o. Late Rani Da;/al Yauav, aged about 44 yeai's Nii-mala Bai, W/o. Late Ram. Dayal Yadav, aged about 42 years Vimla Bai, D/o. Late Raiii Dayal Yadav, aged about 39 years Kamla Bai, D/o. Late Ram. Dayal Yadav, aged about 37 years Pancho Bai, D/o. Late Ram. Dayal, aged about 35 years Rangilal, S/o. Late Ram Dayal Yadav, agcd about 55 vears No.5 to 16 all R/o. Khaiiihai-dflT., Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil aiid District- Raipnr (C.G.) -^-^ t @) PETITIONER RESPONDENTS 17. State of Chhattisgarh, through- CoUector, RaipLU- (C.G.) Vs. 1. 2. 17 Ratan Lal, S/o. Late Jhuniuklal, aged about 40 yeai's, R/o. Khanihardtti, Shankar Nasar, Raipur, Tahsil and Distnct-Raipur (C.G.) (DEPENDANTN0.3) Mehatarin Bai, Wd/o. Sangilal Yaclav, aged about 42 years Seeta Bai, D./o Saneilal Yadav, aged about 30 veai's 3. 4, 5. 7. No. 1 & 2 both R/o. Shankar Nagar, Ralpur, Tab.su and District-Raipiir Geeta Bai, D/o. Saneilal Yadav, aged about 25 years, R/o. Village- Badagaon Pas Chandrakhuri Parm., Tahsil aiid District-Raipur (C.O.) Sardar TrUok Sins, S./o. Sardar Khel Smgh, aged about 52 yeai'-s Siiit. Manjit Kaur, W/o. Sai-dai' Trilok Singh, aged about 45 years .4 & 5 both R/'o. ShaakaT Nasar, Raipur, TahsU and District-Raipur (C.G.) Shvani Lal, S./o Late Jhumuk Lal, agea aDOui oo years. Narad, S/o Late Jhumuk Lal, aged about 30 vears 8. Budhwantin Bai, D/o. Late Jhuniuk Lal, aged about 35 years 9. Sughvan Bai, D/o. Late Jhumuk Lal, aged about 33 years 10. Smt. Paraea Bai, W/o. Late JhuniLik Lal, aged about 50 years 11. Maanu Lal, S/o Late Ram Dayal I'aaav, agcu auoui oo yesss^—— PETITIONER RESPONDENTS -S-- 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18, Vs. 1. 3. 4. Kala Bai, D7o. Late Ram Daya Yadav, aged about 44 years Nirmala Bai; W/o. Late Raiii Daya Yadav, aged about 42 years Vuitla Bai, D/o. Late Ram Daya] Yadav, aped about 39 vears Kamla Bai, D/o. Lat.e Raiii Daval Yadav, aged about 37 years Paiicho Bai, D/o. Late Ram Dayal, aged about 35 years Raasilal, S/o. Late Raia Daval Yadav, aged about 55 years No.6 to 17 aU R/o. Khan-ihai'd&, Shaiikai' Nagac, Raipiu', Talisli aiid District- Raipur (C.G.l State of Chhattisgarh, Collector, Rcripur (C.G.) Ratan Lal; S/o. Late Jhujnuklal, aged about 40 years, R/o. Khauihardih, Shankar Nagai', Raipiu", Tahsil and District-Raipur (C-G-) .DEFENDANTNa.) (UlL.rji.IML'AJ.Ml rvU.^f Mehataiin Bai, Wd/o. Sangilal Yadav, aged about 42 yeara 2. Seeta Bai, D/o Saiigflal Yadav, 5, aged about 30 years No. 1 & 2 both R/o. Shankar Nagai'; Raipur, Tahsil and District-Raipur (C.G.5 Geeta Bai, D/o. Sangtlal Yadav, aged about 25 years, R/o. Viilage- Badagaon Pas Chan.ch'akhuri Farm, TahsU and Di.strict-Raipi.iT (C.G.) Sunil Kumar Verma, S/o Late Rasi Kuinar Venna, aged about 26 years, R/o. Shyam Nagar Raipur, T'alisil aiid District-Raipur (C.G.) Shyam. Lal, S/o Late Jhumuk Lal, aged about 38 years. ,— — 01 3IT1.3 I ^spJQ Jspun 's^yns 3AoqB sqi. ui ^OEpusjsp S-B psA-ejjB usaq s'eq OU[A\ Msnoppsd srp jo uoT'j.Bsitdd'B sqi. AqajaqA-i. 90/V -08 % 90/V-6Z '9-/V-S8 '90/V-fr8 '90/V-8Z '90/V-T 8 'SON ^mS HATQ m jndrea 'II-SSBIO -aBpnp HATC). H Aq pass'ed ^OOS'e'6 psi'ep J3pJO 3Ip ^SUFB§B p3133JIp 3JB SUOT-).I^3d ^IJAV SAOq'B Sqj, p "ejqsiyi ^JpTiajiqa (Q^\r\7 TmrRTA.Tt ^Tin r \?>W^- '-i^'^'^'^"t^r u-</ tDQSS^^j) •33B1S 3lp -TOJ TB.T3U30 331330ApV •Aa 'AIp.mp( •g-A'A 18 •ZO/SOgt- -ON ?0)'d'A fr 'ON ^uspuodssj joj pTre Z.O/SgOS "ON (O'l'd'A c % t'"o_N siuapuodsaj joj {ssunoo '-BuuBqg ziiv-fsyi uqg iyi&\ 'enuBqg -d'Q uqg •s.iouorirpd oip joj psinioo 'pss^jj •>FV uqg --* (-0-0) jndrea 'aoios>noo -ITgnOJU^ 'TtJBgsjfl.BI.TUQ JO alBlg '^1 'i'O'O) -inarea -^WSIQ pue iK'tTBj, '-indmg '-regB^ -Te^piBqg 'qipjBqiE.rei.ra -o/y ]pa 91 0} 9-0^ s.reaA GQ ^noqB pa8B 'ABp^A YBA'BQ uiey 3^'eq •o/g 'yeyiBUBy s.reaA gg ^noq'e pa.S'e 'IBABQ Tm?a s.^q •O/Q 'Tea OlpUBd s.resA ^.g 'jnoq'e pa§i3'ABpB^ p.feQ UTBy 3^Br] -O/Q 'reg B]iTre>i s.-reaA' 5g ^noaw pag^ 'A^PB^ IBABQ niBg 3'^Bq "o/Q <reg 'BITinA s..re3A gfr inoqa ps§B'ABP^A {BAT3Q itrey 3 q 'O/A 'PS ^piiiJijSt a.resA ^f inoqa paga 'ABpBA TB^KQ itrey a^Bq "O/'Q 'ieg ^re>]; &re3A Qg ^noqB nsg^ 'ABpB^ ^e.fea ziie^ s^Bq o/g '{eq nuiiBpi '91 'ST •l7t •5T 'n 'OI •6 s-reaA o°inoqB pag^ '{^q iiniimqp s^eq 'o/^ 'psg ^egBjed -iiag SJB3A eg fnoqv p^Sv 'TBT yT.ian.qp s^sq 'O/Q 'TBQ uB&qgng •g s..re9A op inoai? nsHR 're^ 'sfmjTnup a^eq 'O/Q •reg uiiuBAiqpng •^ SJB3A og inoq'e p93B -]vq Tpnimqp 3^'eq o/g •pt f- read wifh Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for brevitv' the Code') for transposition of his naiTie from the categon' of defendant to plaintiff No. 4, has been rejected. Since fhe common auestion of law is involved ui all these petitions, thev are being disposed ofby this comnion order. (Parties hereinafter shall be refen'ed to as per their description before the Court below). 2. Briefly stated facts necessar'/ for the purposes of fhese petitions are that the plaintiB's filecl the above civil suits for possession and dainaa.es v,rith fhe pleadm.e that fhe plaintiffs and defenclants 2 to 14 are descendents and lee.al heirs of deceased RaBQ.dayal. They are joint owners of the suit land bearing Khasra No. 1141/5, area 1.052 hectare situated in Shaakar Nagar, Raipur. One Rakesh Pandey claimins him.self to be the seneral oower of attomev holder of defendants No. 2 to 14 and late SangUal executed a sale deed in favour of defendant No. 1 ofeach civU suit. Sangilal, husband of plaintiff No. 1 and fafher of plaintifFs No. 2 & 3, died ui the year 1994 and he never executed any power of attoniey in favour of anybody including said Rakesh Paiidey. Even if any power of attorney has been executed by late Sangilal, after his deafh the sanie becomes void ancl ineffective. The purchasers have obtained uossession on the basis of above deeds. 3. Defendants No. 2 to 14 including petitioner Ratanlal fUed their written statement in the above suits and supported case of the plaintiffs. The defendant No. 1 ui the written statement pleaded that defendants No. 2 to 14 and Sangilal were owners of the suit land, they executed a power of attomey in favour of one Rakesh Pandey from whom. he purchased the suit land through a registercd sale deed in the vear 2000 and obtained possession. Naine of defendant No. 1 has also been recorded in the revenue 'oauers and the plaiatiSs have no right in the suit land. ¥- 4. The petitioner moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code and submitted that there is no conflict of uiterests between the plaintiSs and defendants No. 2 to 14. Since fhere is no conflict of interest, he cannot set up counterclami and fherefore, his naiae should be transposed froni (he categon7 of defendant to plaintiff No. 4 so that he could properly prosecute the suit as plaintiff . 5. The leamed Civa Judse by the inipugaed orcler of P/1 reiected the above uraver of fhe 6. Shri A.K. Prasad, leamed counsel appearing for fhe petitioner contended that it is settled law fhat fhe Court has power under sub-rule (2) Order l, Rule 10 of the Code to transfer the defendant to fhe categoiy of plaintifis. This power could be exercised by the High Court tn appeal, if necessary; suo motu t.o do coniplete justice. It was further argued that tfae iurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to be invoked only to correct errors of jurisdiction. Where fhe Court or tribunal fails to render necessan' finding to support its order, the same would also be a iurisdictional en'or liable to be corrected under Article 227 of the Constitution. 7. On the other hand, Shri B.P. Shaniia & Shri K. Sliraina, leamed counsel appearing for respondents No. 4 & 5 ui W.P.No. 5035/07 contended that the plaintiffs have pleaded in their olaint tfaat one Rakesh Pandev as power of attoniev holder of No. 2 to 14 and late Sangilal executed a sale deed ui favour of contesting defendaot, however, fhere is no pleaduij that the petitioner/defendant never executed a power of attorney in favour of Rakesh Pandey. Thus, in view of tfae matter, it cannot be said that fhere is no conflict of interest between the platntiffs and petitioner Ratanlal. In ftie instant matter the plaintiffs did not niake any application for transposition, on the contran', froia the pleadings in the plaint it is clear that there is a conflict of interest betvveen the ir / ^ 11 ¥- plaintiffs and defendaiits No. 2 to 14. It was furtfaer arau whUe exercising jurisdiction under. Aiticle 227 o Constitution of India only en'ors of law patently on i warrant correction. Even the wronp decisioas made b lower Court cannot be interfered wifh under Article 227 ^ such decisions have been made within the jiii'isdiction ol lower Court. The plaintiff is at libei-t)' to aiTay a partic person as plaintiff or defendaat in his suit and he cannot com.pelled to make a particular person to be joined as plain'i The plaintiff is a dominus litis of his suit 8. I have heard leamed counsel for tlie parties and have goi tl-irough the unpugned orders and other documents aiinexe with fhe petitions. 9. Fix>m perusal. ofthe pleadings m the plaint, it is observed that the plaintifi's have alleged that the smt land was transferred b;,' Rakesh Kuinar Pandey on the basis of power of attorney executed by. the petitioner Ratanlal, other defendaiits ai~id Late Sangilal. There is. no pleading that the defendaiits No. 2 to 14 did not execute power of attoi-ney m favom' of Rakesh Pandey. The petitioner has filed copy of the plaint and the written statement filed by the contesting defendant. However, the written statement filed by the petitioner has not been annexed with these petitions. The petitiouer m pai'agraph 5.G of flie petitions have pleaded that relationship among fhe parties is not veiy condial, the plaintiffs are not taking interest in the case aad thev are not properiv Drosecuting fhe case before the trial Court.. However, no such ground was taken m his application under Order 1 Rule 10 read witl-i Section 151 of Code before the trial Court. 10. Tn the matters of 'Ki <fcerlthR Hon'ble RiinremR Court while dealtng with powers of the Court under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code, has held tliat flie Court has power to •AIR2U04SC2006 @ 12 .'. 5--- transfer defendaat to the category of plaintiff aad where fl plaintiff agrees, such transposition should be readU;7 madi This power can be exercised b\r the High Court in appeal, necessaiy, suo motu to do complete justice between fhe parties The High Court; considenng that the plea raised by Allahabac Development Authority and State of U.P. was identical, m ordei to efibctuate complete adjudication of the question involved in the appeal, transposed the State of U.P. as appeHant No. 2 in the appeal. In thcse ctrcumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Coiirt dismissed the appeal with an obsen/ation that the order passed bv the High Court to effectuate complete adiudication of the question involved in appeal, was in fhe interest ofjustice and therefore, no interference is called for. U. Tn the matter of Irastawwa cslias Irawwa. cutd others Vs. thers^ also in a snit challenging sale deed the defendant praved for transposition as co-plaintiff claiming that he is the joint owner of fhe suit property and fhe prayer was not objected to by the plaintiff and in these circiimstances, it was held that transposition can be made to do complete.justice between the parties and \vith a view to avoid multiplicit;/ of proceedings. In the other judgments cited by leamed coiinsel for the petitioner also the above prmciple of law has been reiterated. 12. Tn the inatter of Surua Deo >r fl it. has been held that. t.hoiigh the power is akin to that of aa ordm.aiy court of appeal, yet the power under Article 227 is intended to be used sparingly and only m appropriate cases for fhe pnrpose of keeping the subordinate com'ts and tribunals v/ifhin the bounds of theu' authori'tA' and not for correcting mere en'ors. The power may be exercised in cases occasiorung grave injustice or failure ofjustice such as when (i) the court or tribunal has assumed a jiirisdiction which it does not have, (ii) has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does - AIR 200;> KamatiAa 84 ° (2W?~i, 6 SCC 675 have, such faiku-e occasiomng a faflure of justice, and (iii) the jurisdiction though available is being exercised in a manner which tantamomits to overstepping the limits ofjurisdiction. 13. In the light of the principles of law laid down m the above judgments, tf facts of the present case are scrutinized, it is observed that the case of the contesting defendant is base.d on the sale deed executed by power of attorney holder of fhe petitioner and other collusive defendaiits mcluding late Sangilal. The plaintifis have pleaded that late Sangilal never executed any sale deed and since he died in the vear 1994, any sale deed executed by his attoniey in fhe year 2000 shall be void ab initio and the sam.e wozild not confer title on the purchaser. However, there is absolutely no pleadmg fliat the defendants No. 2 to 14 also did not execute any power of attomey m favom- of Rakesh Pandey. The written statement, if any, filed by the defendants No. 2 to 14 has not been annexed wifh these petitions and therefore, it camiot be said that fheir pleadings are identical with the pleadings of the plaintias. More so, there is nothing on record to establish that the plaiiitiffs did not have any objection to transposition ofthe petitioner as plaintifiT No. 4. 14. In the above factual background, this Court is of the considered opu'uon fhat there is no iurisdictional en'or committed bv the leamed Civil Judge and there is no en'or in exercise of jurisdiction, which has occasioned failure ofjustice wan'anting interference under Article 227 of Constitution of India. 15. In the resiilt, all tfae above petitions fail and ai-e hereby dismissed. .JL. No order as to costs. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge