<3 Basaht Lal Raiwade Bhaamania & others Post for pronouncement of the judgment and order on /$-1 0-2008 Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Writ Petition (227) No, S639 of 2.00J Basant Lal Raiwade, S/o Hoisai Rajwade, aged about 32 years, Occupation- Asricultural, R/o Namna Kaia, Ambikapur, P.S. & Tahsii Ambikapur, D'stt. Sarguja (C.G.) Versus Plainfiff Bhagmania D/o Sajjan Rajwar, W/o Gendu Ram, aged about 26 years, Occupation - House Wife, R/6 Viiiage & Post BhittikaSal, P.S., Tahsii Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.1 2. Rama Shanker Singh, S/o Not Known, PJo VilSags Nsar Coid Storags, Behind iViunna Ata Chakki, Ambikapur, IP.S. & Tahsil Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) 3. Gopai Ram, S/o Ramprasad Rajwar, aged about 5-5 years, Occupation- Agricultural. 4. Mohan Ram, S/o Ramprasad Rajwar, aged 60 years. 5. Ranjeet Kerketta, S/o Unknown 6. Rambai, W/o Ramprasad, D/o Shondu, Aged about 40 ysars, Respondents No. 3 to 6 are resident of ViIiage-Namnakaia, Near Power House, Kanya Parisar Road, Ambikapur, Rolice StatiQn & Tahsii- Ambikapur, District- Sarguja (C.G.) 7. Kaushiiya, W/o Nehru, D/o Bhondu, Aged about 38 years, R/o Viitage & Post-Bhitthi, Poiice Station & Tahsit -Ambikapur, District-Sarguja (C.G.) 8. Nanki, Wd/o Bhondu Raiwar, R/o ViSlage & Post Bhitthi, Polics Station & Tahsil- Ambikapur, Djstrict- Sarguja (C.G.) Nirmla, W/o Shyam Bihari Sont, Ag®dabout 45 years, R/o Viil^ge & Post Namna, Near Power Hpuse, Kanya Parisar Road, Poiice: Station & Tahsii - Ambikapur, District- Sarguja (C.G.) iA 10. Sundari Bai, W./o Sitaram Panika, Agsd about 43 years, R/o Village Posf- Namna, Near Power House, Kanya Parisar Road, Police Station & Tahsil- Ambikapur, Di Sarguja (C.G.) S/o Duiichandra Agrawai, Aged about53years,R/o Agrasen Ward Nagar Poiice Station & Tahsi! - Ambikapur, District- Sarguja (C.G.) Ramshankar Pandey, Aged about 53 years, R?o Village & Post Namna, Nsar Power House, Kanya Parisar Ro-ad, Poiice Station & Tahsii- Ambikapur, District-Sarguja (C.G.) 13. Subhash Agrav/a!, S/o Duifchsndra Agrawa!, Aged about 55 years, R/o Agrasen VVard, Nagar PoJice Station & Tahsi! - | Ambikapur, District- Sarguja (C.G.)i 14. . State of Chhattisgarh, Through : Collector Sarguja, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) (Wrif petifion under Articie 227 of the Constitution of 'ndia) Singte Bench : Hon'bSe Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri D.N. Prajapati, counsel for the petitionsr. Shri Vinay Harti, Dy. Advocate Generai for the State/ respondentNo.14. ORDE SPassed on this _,/.?_ dayof October, 200S neci order dated bv fte The petitioner belng aggrieved by the imj i-5-2008 (Annexure-P/1) passed in an application herein under Order 1 Rule 10 read withSection 151 of the Code of Civi Procedure, 1908 (for shoft "the CPC") by the Third Ambikapur, Sarguja, in civil suit No.115-A/200! Ramashankar Singh & Others), preferred this pefition Jhe Constitution of india seeking quashment of the 9-5-2058 and further aSlowing the appiication of thc petitioner fi' dge, Class-SI, > (Bhagmania vs. under Article'227 of 2) Ths jndisputeible iacts, in nutshell, as projecied by the petitioner are that the first respondent/plaintiff filed a clvii suit for decSaration of titls, possession and mesne profit against the second respondeni to thirteenth "'SiSSS- respondsnt herein ciaiming herself to be ths owner of the suit iand bearins khasra Nos.2/22, 2/25 & 2/26 area of 2.60,1.33 & 1.61, respectively in toial 5.54 acres situated at viliage Namnakala, Tahsi! Ambikapur, District Sarguja. The petitioner, being the owner of the land bearing khasra No.2/75 area 0.101 hectare, filed an appiication (Annexure-P/4) praying for impteading the petitioner as a party/respondent in the suit on the ground that a part of jand bearing khasra No.2/75 forms part of iand bearing khasra Nos.2/25 & 2/26 and the petitioner obiained posssssion by the registered sale deed on 21-3-1995 from defendant/respondent No.3 herein. 3) The first respondent/piaintiff filed reply to the said application statlng thai the land bearing khasra No.2/75 Is altogether different land and the same is situated at a distance of about 1 Km. The petitioner has nothing to do with the plaint schedule land i.e. !and bearing khasra Nos.2/22, 2/25 & 2/26. 4) Thse iearned Judge having considered ail the facts and riva submissions made by the parties came to the concSusion that the No.2/75, which is in possession of the petltioner, has nothing to do plaint scheduie iand. Thus, the petitioner v/as not a necessary pi impieaded as party/respondent in the pending suit between respondsnt'plaintiff and other respondents/defendants. to oe e first s) Law on the question of adding a party as a necessary in the mater of Udit Narain Singh Maipaharia vs. Additionai Board of Revenue, Bihar and another', the Hon'ble Supreme as under: "A necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively; a proper psrty Is one in whose absence an effectlve order can be made but w'nose presence is necessary for a complete and fina! decision on the question involved in the proceedjng." Ths aforesaid decision was referred and upheld subseqi case of U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad vs. Gvan Devi (dead .2 is ciear. 4" The Hon'bie SuDreme Court in the matter of .Razia Begum:vs. lebzadi Anwar Begum and others whlle considering the question of 1AlR 1963 SC 786 :i(1S95)2SCC326 'AIR 1958 SC 886 addition ofparty in an appiication under order i Rule 10(2) ofthe as under "13 (2) That in a suit relatlng to in order that a person may be added as as distinguished from a commercial interest, in the subject-matter of the' !;+u 7) case of tltle necessary for necessary to !lved i.n the The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of <J. J. Lai Pvt. others Vs. M.R. MuraU and another has obsep/ed that in ths between te/o persons, the presence of third party is neiiher the decision of tbe question involved, nor his' presence is enabie the Court to adjudicate upon and settle the questions invol proceedings effectuaily and compteteiy. 5) Appiying the we!! settied principles of iaw to the facte ofthe present case wherein presence of the petitioner is not necessary for effective and compiete adjudication of ihe case. The petitioner, if h!e has any grievance, is not remediless. The petitioner may fake recourse io civii jurisdiction under other Drovlsions of Saw, if so advised. 9) In view ofthe foregoing, fhe pstition is disrnissed. Consequently, !.A. No.1 stands disposed of. Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge