>»i»a!yi.;(; iss-S IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ^. - (C-_G.-1 -i K WRIT PETITIQN^^NO.-/S80?~ OF 2009 PETITIONER ,^^ o ' ..•••f^^.. °-^8-- <<N^''\ £>J.*'' ,\n^ <?o-^>Awt%v v-:'»^'" .y"" •^T.-i -A&' ^ ^•••" RESPONDENT fObiectori ^iu..._..^ - .-- Smt. Sarla Maheshwari, aged about 43 years, Wife of Late Shri Nandkishor Maheshwari, R/o. 45, Vikas Nagar, Lakholi, Rajnandgaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS 1. RESPONDENT (Defendant) Prateek Maheshwari, Son of Late Shri Nandkishor Maheshwari, aged about 19 years, R/o. Ganj Line, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 2. •''Brijkishor Gupta Son of Krishna Murari Gupta, aged about 68 years, Proprietor M/s. Brij Kishor Gupta, Kailash Nagar, Rajnandgaon, District R'ajnandgaon (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION_OF INDIA l/f/isS\ /( <b^ j RESPONDEMTS HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISOARH, BILASPUK W.P. (227) No. Smt. Sarla Maheshwari Versus Prateek Maheshwari and another SB: HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGSAWAL, J PRESENT:- Shri R.N. Jha, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Stunesh Bajaj, Advocate, for the respondent No. 1. Sushri Sangeeta Mishra, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri Arvind Kuiaar Dubey, Advocate for respondent No. 2. ORAL ORDBR (18-11-2009) 1. With consent ofthe parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. Feeling aggrieved by the order datcd 11-9-2009 passedby the District Judge, Rajnandgaon in Civil Suit No. 14- A/2003 whereby and whereiinder, the application preferred by the respondents under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of C.P.C. has been aUowed and the Objector was directed to be impleaded as plaintlffin the suit, fhis petition has been ffled.' 3. Facts briefly stated are as under:- 4. The petitioner/plaintiffinstituted a suit seeking eviction of tenant Brij Kishore Gupta under Section 12(l)(a) and 12(lj(c) offhe C.G. Accommodation Control Act. Objector Prateek Maheshwari sought his impleadment as a party in the si-iit claiming himself co-owner of the suit premises by ^iling an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C. The said application was earlier rejected by the trial Court and the rejection order was challenged by the objector Prateek Maheshwari by filing W.P.(C) No. 3699/2007 before this Court. Wifh the consent of the parties, fhe said petition was disposed of directtng fhe trial Court to decide fhe said appBcation afresh after »»^\ ?/•'} i£-;i givlng opportunity to the parties to make additional submission and pleadings. 5. SIiri R.N. Jha, leamed counscl appearing for the petitioner would subinit that under the provisions, the plaintiff cannot be compeDed to implead any other person as a plaintiff and the said order to that extent is perverse. He would further submit that evea otherwise, the objector is neither necessaiy party nor proper party in tlie suit filed by the petitioner against the tenant and therefore, fhe ordcr passed by the trial Court 1s perse fflegal aad deserves to be quashed. 6. Per contra, Shri Sumesh Baj^, leamed counsel appeadnj for the respondent No. 1 would submlt that a bare readiag of the plaint would reveal that (he plaintiff is not claimmg suit premises as sole owner. The premises was let out by late Nand Kishrore Maheshwari i.e. husband of the petitioner and father of the objector and after his death, bofh would be co-otpner of the suit premises and, therefore, the objector betng necessaiy party, the trial Court rightly directed his impleadment in (he suit He would ftirfher subinit that the objector may be directed to be impleaded as a defendant tn place ofplaintiff. 7. I have heard leamed counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 8. The issue whether or not the objector is co-owner of the suit premises is to be decided by the trial Court after framing issue in ttus regard on its own merit. Prima facie a bare readtng of the plaiat allegations woiild reveal that the premises was let out to the tenant by late Nand Kishore Maheshwari and fhe suit has been instituted by ttie plaintiff on fhe groi.md that after death of her husband, the tenant is not paying rent to her and, fhcrefore, it carmot be said that the objector is not a necessary party tn fhe smt. Law is weU settled that one^ -f£:~^ tf ^ ''• iS^r- £VS,3h ^^: c!y co-owner can file a suit ^ainst tenant for his eviction only in a case where other co-owner does not object to it, but where other co-owner objects, fhen certainly the other co-owner is a necessary party in the siiit as the result of fhe suit will certainty affect his right, therefore, so far as direction of the trial Court to rmplead objector as a party in the suit is concemed, has been rightly passed by the trial Court. But so far as fhe order directm.g objector to be rmpleaded as plaintifi' is concemed, fhe order is certainly bad aad deserves modt&catiorL 9. In view of the above, fhe trial Court Is directed to permit the objector to be impleaded as defendant in the case instead ofimpleading him as plaintiff. 10. However in fhe circumstances, the parties are at liberty to ffle additional pleadings in fhe siiit whieh are necessary due to addition ofa new pairty in the suit. 11. The petition is accordir^ly disposed of. 12. No order as to costs. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge