BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ' w. P. (227) No'. C%m/ / 2010 PETITIONER : / Dr.‘ (Smt.) Pratima Raman W/o Shri [APPLICAM] N.V. Ramah, aged abdut 73’years, R/o Khirhani Fatak, Katni (M.P.) VERSUS W Wel$erh w; REEPONDENTS [PLAINTIFF] / 1. Ajit son Singh of latc Gupta, Bahadur aged. Slngh, about resident 75 years, of Apapura, Kutchehri Road, Durg (C.G.) [DEFENDANT NO.1] /2. Milind Gupta, aged about 33 years, .son of Dr. Vijay Singh Gupta, resident of - Apapura, Katcheri Road, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) [DEFENDANTNO.2] 3. Skand Gupta” aged about 31 years, son of Dr. Vijay Singh Gupta, resident of Apapura, Katcheri Road, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) (Defendants No.1 85 2 through power of attorney holder Dr. Vijay Singh Gupta) [DEFENDANT N03] 4. Dr. Vijay Singh Gupta, aged about 69 years, son of late Bahadur Singh Gupta, resident of Apapura, Katcheri Road, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) [DEFENDANTNO.4] /5. Aay Singh Gupta, aged aboutn68 years, son of iate Bahadur Singh Gupta, resident of House No. 179, Utai Road, Near Labour Court, Iranidera, Durg District Durg. CLE 227 OF THE INDIA . ' j WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTI CONSTITUTION OF HIGH COURT OF cHHATTIsGARH AT mmspUR w.P. (2271 No. 6712 OF 2010 PETITIONER/ (APPLICANT) Dr.(Smt.) Pratima Raman Versus RESPONDENTS Ajit Singh Gupta and others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (Single Bench: Hon‘ble Shri N.K. Agarwal, J4 Present z Shri P.R. Patankar, counsel for the petitioner. Shri V.G. Tamaskar, counsel for respondent No.1. Shri Sumit Verma, counsel for respondents No.2 to 4. ‘ Shri Plashant Gupta, counsel for respondent No.5. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 05th day of‘April, 2011) The instant petition is directed against the order dated 23-09-2010 passed ,by First Civil. Judge, Class-II; Durg in Civil Suit No.4-A/2006 whereby the petitioner’s application flied under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of . Civil Procedure has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: By iiljng Civil Suit No.4-A/2006, respondent No. 1 is‘ seeking relief of declaration to the en‘ect that judgnent and decree dated 29-04- 1989 passed in Civil Suit No. 75— A/ 1989 being obtained by playing fraud is void and ineifective. Relief of permanent injunction and damages 1;?fl ‘ 11 were also claimed. /’ I /?% 3. Trial Court based on pleadings of the par-tbs framed several issues. One of the issues framed is: “Whether the suit is bad for mis—joinder of parties or ‘non—joinder of necessary parties”. 4. _ During recording of evidence, petitioner moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of CPC seeking relief . of her impleadment in the case on‘ the g‘ound: she being V one of the legal representatives; of her deceased brother ARandhir Singh and her mother Smt. Sushila Devi is a” necessary party in the instant case. 5. Trial Court dismissed the above application holding petitioner as not necessary party. r 6. Shri Patankar, learned counsel for the petitioner“ would submit: thevpetitioner is a necessary party in the case for effective adjudication of the case and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. She being legal representative of her mother as well as her brother deceaSed Randhir Singh, without impleading her, no eh'ective decree can be passed in the matter in hand. 7. On the other hand, Shri Tamaskar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 vehemently opposed and submitted: petitioner is neither necessary nor proper party: the above petition has been preferred in connivance with contesting defendant to 1V: delay the trial and the ”petition deserves to be dismissed. K 3 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parues and perused the order nnpugned 9. The instant suit is not a suit for partition in whichrit Jean be said petitioner being legal representative, is a -. v necessary party. The instant euit is tiled for declaration of ’ judgment and decree passed in a suit as void, inter-aha on the ground: the same has been obtained ‘by playing kaud. Therefore, the Tnal Cour-thas not committed any illegality I in dismissing the petitioner’s application for impleadment warranting interferenoeof this Court under Article 227w of ' the Constitution of India Further; it‘jt is found by the Y L trial Court that petitioner is a necessary party, then the ”issue named in this regard maywbe decided by the trial ' Court according to law 10. For the reasons mentioned herein above, the petition w being devoid of substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/— 7" N.K.Agarwa[ Judge s:e . I