i 8EB> .%,• ^ HIOH CXiURT OP CHHATTISGARH, BIIASPUR W.P.(C) N0.3744/2007 pEriTIONBRS PLAINTIFFS RESPONDENTS DEFENDANTS 2. Basant Kuiuar Gupla, Stged about 42 years, s/o Badri Rrasad Rajendra Prasad Gupta, aged aliout 38 years, s/o Badri Prasad Gupta Both residents of Takhatpur, Tahsil Takhatpur, Distt, Bilaspur(C.G). Versus Krishna Kumar Gupta, aged about 32 years, s/o Babulal Gupta (C.G). Basaiit Kiunar Gupta, aged about 35 years, s/o Babulal Bofh residents of Jarhabhata, Bilaspur, Tahsil & Dlstt. Bilaspur WRIT PBTITION UNDBR ARTICLE 237 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Appearaace: Shri Shrikuiaar Agrawal, Sr. Advocate wifh Shri Aaand Kiunar Gupta, Counsel for fhe petitioner. Shri Suresh Paadey, counsel for the respondents. ORAL ORDBR K- J15.2.2008) SUNIL KUMAR SIttHA^J. Heard finally with fhe consent of tfae parties. This writ petition has been filed u/s 227 of the Constitution of India chaBenging that part of order dated 23.4.2007, by which, the teamed trial Court has dismissed an appltcation (I.A.No.6) fUed by fhe petitioners/plamtifls under Order 1 Rule 10 of fhe Code of CivU Procedure for impleadins one Salnia Bano as detendant in fhe case. Learaed couasel for the petitioners/plauittffs submits fh.at iaitiaUy fhe plaintiffs had filed the suit for declaration of tifte, possession and permanent iujunction on the grouad that ^^'•^^e W.P.fCT. No.3744 of2007 $:-? fhey have been dispossessed by the respondents on a particular date. He subinits that the case of fhe plaintiffs was ftiat they had purchased suit property froin one Sakna Bauo by a registered sale deed iu the year 1991 aad Satma Baxio had purchased fhat property frow. fhe defendants/respondents herehi whereas respondents bad denied to execute any such sale in favour of Salma Baao, therefore, the plaintiffs had occasion to file aa application for unpleadinent of Safana Bano as defendant ia the case under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C. He submits that for the lawful adjudication of the matter, Sahna Bano is a necessary party; th.erefore, the trial Court coiiunitted an error oflaw wlrile rejectmg ffae aforesaid appUcation. No doubt, fhe principle of' law is fhat plaiatiff' is the dominus litus in fhe suit having eveiy right to iinplead a person against whom, he feels fhat a cause of action exists. In tfae present case, fhe defendants have denied to seU the property to Salma Baao, therefore, the plamtiifs have righfty decided to implead her as a party because in such a situation they preserve a cause ofaction against her. In fhe facts aad circuiustances of This case, in the opinlon of fhis Coiirt, the trial Court has coiiunitted an error of law by disiiussiug the said appUcation filed by the plaintiffs. The appUcatlon deserves to be allowed. Accordiagly, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 23.4.2007 relatiag to disnussal of iuteriru appKcatlon fLA.No.61 filed under Order l Rule 10 C.P.C. is set aside. The said appUcation (I.A.No.6) is aUowed. The plauitiffs are directed to take necessaiy steps ia this regauL__-——— No order as to costs. su'~ Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge