XI<HC~7 8 mww wm mwm mamawam ‘éwwwm PETITIONER RESPONDENTS 1. Deepak i Agrawal, Guardiar Tehsn Bi L Stafe of Bi!aspur 2. Additione Tehsil Bi aged about ha, District Bilaspur (CG) ’ersus Chhattiegarh, through the Cotiector, (CG) u Tahsiidar. Sub Tahsii ha, District Biiaspur (CG) (Writ Petition under Articiei 227 of the Constitution of India) DHERENDRA MISHRA, J. 3Q-3u2009i- S'hri Rajeev Bharat, couns Shri Shashank Thakur, Pa ei Lawyer for the Statelrespondents. Heard. This petition ie directed ag inst the order of Annexure-P/t dated 27‘“ December, 2008 whereby ie‘ rned Civil Judge Ctass-i, Mungeti, has tejectecl the apptication preferred by the petitioner under 0rdert Rule 10 of the CPC to implead 3 pers ne as proposed defendants namely, Chandrashekhar Gir, Brijesh Sin petitioner referring to the written tate argued that the respondent/State that the petitioner in cotiueion with said h and Anand Kumar. Learned oéiinséi “far th for the petitioner. Through Kaiiash Chand Agrawai, Village & Sargaon, r WW<W§H> 3.3. HON’BLE SHRI statement filed on behalf of the has categoriceiiy taken a detenc (umar Agrawai, S/o Shri Kailaschndra 16 years, m / XI—HC—78 mm , E1 zoo mm<W) wmm mufsam ’_ g , WW§WW agsitanm ot his name mutatedover the suit in this period the suit land was ngh and Anand Kumar, therefore, in View 0f the pleadings in the itten statement of the State, the ‘ impieadment of the proposed def ndants would be necessary for just adjudioation of the suit. The petitioner has tiled t suit against the respondents for declaration that he is title holder and he is in possession of the suit property and the defendants be restrained from interfering with the possession. Learned Civil Judg on the basis of pleadings of the respective parties has dismissedt e application with an observation that impieading the proposed defendan s as party would not be necessary for just adjudication of the suit. ln the considered opinion of this Court, there is no illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error co mitted by the trial Court warranting interference in the writ jurisdiction nder Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia. The petition being devoid o substance deserves to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. a‘i Chandrashekhar, Halka Patwari, iahd. He further submitted th tfansferred in the name of Brijesh . sd/_ Dhirendra Mishr Judge / “ i r a h