PETITIONERS APPLICANTS I 1] Mahesh Prasad Sisodiya, S/o. Durga Prasad Sisodiya, aged about 68 years, W0. Shanti Chowk, Sonkarpara, Purani Basti, Raipur (CG) Jeevanlal Singh (Kshatri), aged about n 80 years, S/o. Late Biharilal Singh, R/o. Turi Hatari Road, Purani Basti, Raipur (CG) Raj esh Kumar Katariya, aged about 42 years, S/o. Late Pilaram Katariya, Anil Kumar Katariya, aged about 3 years, S/o. Late Pilaram Katariya, Manharan Singh Rajput, aged about 65 years, S/o. Mohanlal Rajput, /2] /8] /9] ./t Arvind Pandey, aged about 30 years, S/o. Jagmohan Pandek, 11.. Ashish ingh Kshatri, aged about 25 years, S/o, Late Harnarayan Kshatri, All above Resp. No. 3 to 7 are R/o. \_ Lohar Chowk, Purani Basti, Raipur (CG) * Lakhan Lal Solanki, aged about 65 years, S/o. Late Banshilal Solanki Bharat Solanki, aged about 45 years, S/o. Late Banshilal Solanki, Both above Resp. N0. 8 & 9 are R/o. Bhoipara, PUrani Basti, Raipur (CG) Chandrabhan Singh Rajput, aged about 55 years, S/o. Late Jeevanlal Rajput, Rajendra .Rajput, aged about 50 years, S/o. Jeevanlal Raj put, Niranjan Rajput, aged about 45 years, S/o. Late Jeevanlal Rajput, /10] /111 12] IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WritPetition (under Art. 227) No. 6%»? /2009 8 S Ca /13] Gulab Singh Rjaput, aged about 45" years, S/o. Late Jeevanlal Rajput, Resp. No. 10 to 13 are R/o. Near Danteshwari Mandir, Kushalpur, Raipur (CG) A11 the above petitioners are the members of Rajput Kshatriya Samaj. VERSUS Basant Kumar Thakur, S/o. Chandulal Thakur, aged about 62 years, R/o Shanti Chowk, Purani Basti, Raipur /2] Khedulal Pandel, aged about 70 years, S/o. Late Kunjiai P'andel, R/o. Lohar Chowk, Purani Basti, Raipur (CG) (wrongly typed as Lolar Chowk) /3] Urrnila Pandel, aged about 40 years, W/o. Jagrnohan Pandel, R/o. Lohar Chowk, Raipur (CG) /4a] Shobha Chouhan, W/o. Sanjay Chouhan, aged about 30 years, 4b] Archana Pandel, D/o. Khedulal Pandel, aged about 27 years, / 4c] Asha% Pandel, D/o. Khedulal Pandel aged about 24 years, /4d] Raja Pandel, S/o. Khedulal Pandel, aged about 18 years, Resp. No. 4(a) to 4(d) are R/o. Lohar Chowk, Purani Basti, Raipur (CG) / 5] Smt. Tara Tilwar, aged about 45 years, R/o. Lohar Chowk, Raipur (CG) /6] Smt. Laxmi Pandel, aged about 50 years, W/o. Bharat Pandel, R/o. Lohar Chowk, Raipur (CG) ...........Respondent no.2 to 6 are Respamients/ defendants RESPONDENTS Plaintiff WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA . k w {’Cw?) NO . (J 8L Wm 2004) mm (Wig) mmww WW§WW $3ifanal1€m S.B. Hon’ble Shri Justice N.K. A a a! Q64 1 -2009 Shri Manoj Paranjape, couns for the petitioners. Heard on admission. The instant petition is dire ted against the order dated 29-09-2009 by iXth Civii Judge, ass-ll, Raipur whereby and whereunder the petitioners’ appii ation under Order 1 Rule 10 sub ruie (2) has been dismissed b the triai Court. The facts stated briefly as u der: The respondent No.1 fiie a suit aganst respondents No.2 to 6 seeking relief of deciara ion and permanent injunction over the suit property. The petitio ers herein filed an appiication under Order1 Rule 10 sub-rule (2 for impleading them as party respondent on the ground that hey being the members of Rajput Kshatriya Samaj and sinc the property belongs to the said Samai, are necessary par “in the suit. The trial Court dismissed the said application, Learned counsel appear for the petitioners wouid submit that although the plaintiff i dominus Iitis to impleaci any person or not, a party to the suit ut in the fact situation of the case, the petitioners being nece sary party, the learned triai ,Court ought to have ailowed the p titioner to be impieaded as a party in the said suit. i i t i I have heard teamed course! for the petitioners and perused the order impugned. Without expressing any nion en the merits of the matter suffice’it to say that the ptai tiff being dominus litis in the matter of impieadment of a party, tr he cannot be compeiled to impiead any person as a party to hom he do not want to join in the suit uniess exceptionai ci stances are shown. No such exceptionai ctrcumstances have been shown by the petitioners. Moreover, if a person s not a party to a suit, then, the decree passed in such a suit y not be binding upon him, and thus, no prejudice is going to b caused to the petitioner. it is weit settled principie of iaw that this Court, in exercise of its superviSory jurisdic on under Articie 227 of the Constitution of india, should refr n from interfering with the order passed by the Court below Xcept in such oases where perversity, itlegaiity, irreguiarity jurisdictionai error is writ large on the face of the record. whit h is not in the present case. The petition has no merit and the same is accordingly Sd/— N. K. Agarwal , Judge i dismissed. No order as tocosts. Kvr o i t m a o W m 200 mW (Wm