ii tK . 1 •» f~\ c IN THEJIIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OP CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR WritPetitiQn(227.)NO.'' /S010 PETITIONERS APPLICANTS ^ 2) t^- •s^aw ^ „, . Smt Geeta Sj^si Kunwar W/o Shri Arun Shyam Kunwar, Aged about 40 years, R/o Qr. 12-A, Street 17, Sector-2, Bhilai, Tahsil Ss, District DurgfC.G.) Smt Pramila Borikar W/o Ramdas Boriker, Aged about 52 years, R/o behind the St. Xaviour School, Kripal Nagar, Post Vaishali Nagar, Bhilai, Tahsil & District Durg (C. G.) i- ]R VERSUS RESEQNEIENTS : NQIi^'F'I.ICANTS % ?(?NSJ-* li'j^l^ il*^ PLAINTIFP /'" 2) 3) Smt. Shakuntaja Daliate, aged aboyt70yearSW/oLateBargi Rao Dahate, Occupation : House wife,' ; .; ;: ,..: ' . Smf Mala Dahate, aged about 45 years, W/o Shri Ashok Dahate, Oceupation House wife, Bpth resident of near Jain MaMdir Shanti Nagar, BhUai, Tahsil] 8s DistrictDurg (C.G.) Manish Jain aged about 43 years, S/p Late Bhagchand Jaj.n, QGCupatioh Transport_Busin.ess iLtd S.M.83, Padnabhpiir Durg, Tahsai,& District Durg (C.Q.) . .! -; • m iffiv WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^ 't K HIGHCOURT OF GHHATTISGARH AT BBLASPUR S.B: Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petitfon (227) No. 7072/2010 PETITIONERS Smt Geeta Shyam Kunwar and Anr. Versus RESPONDENTS : Smt. Shakuntala Dahate and others. Appearance: Shti Punit Ruparel, counsel forthe petitioners. WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE227 OFTHE CONSTFFUTION OF INMA ORALORDER (06.12.2010) Heard. (2) In a suit for specific perfomiance ofcontract preferred by one Manish Jain, respondent No.3 against fhe respondents No.l arid 2 namely Shakuritala Dahate and Mala Dahate who happen to be the mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the petitioner, the leamed trial court has rejected petitioners apiplication under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC forjoining them as defendants in the suit. (3) Itwasthecontentionofthepetitionersthatthesuitlandistheir ancestral property, wherein they have a right and if the suit for specific performanee is decreed and the sale-deed is executed in favodrofplaintif^theirrightwouldbedefeated. (4) In the matter of SubbdH Kumar Gupta a^ "Alpana Giipta and others, (2005) 11 SCC 5^^ ar '«<?• ^ Supreme Court has held that in matter regarding exercise ofpower under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC the High Court do not mterfere with the exercise of power by the trial court and that ordinarily no interference should be made underArticle 227 ofthe Constitution of India. (5) Ifthe petitioners so desire, they may file a separate suit for redressal of their grievanee and establishment pf their title or joint ownership tothe suit property. (6) The instant petition is bereft of any substance, which fails and is hereby diSmissed with the above observatiori. Sd//- PrashantKumar Mishra Judge