/•^-^ij~^r^^'^^\^^^.-^'^''^rv/*^^^^^^-^/'^.^':^-^ v-^'^-^-'^--.j'-^ p ic l.'" BEFORETHE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) OF 2011 WRIT PETITION [227] N0. PETITIONERS APPLICANTS VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^-:-l. 1. Ku. Sharda Rawani D/o Kanhaiyalal Rawani, aged about 38 years, 2. Dheeraj Rawani S/o Kanhaiyalal, aged about 36 years, 3. Bhuneshwar S/o Kanhaiyalal, aged about 34 years, All R/o Railway Bangalapara Raigarh, Tahsil & District - Raigarh (C.G.) 1. Radha Bai D/o Damru Rawani, aged about 56 years, R/o Darogamuda Raigarh, Tahsil 85 District - Raigarh (C.G.) fPLAINTIFFI 2. Kanhaiya Rawani S/o Damru Rawani, aged about 62 years, R/o Darogamuda Raigarh, Tahsil & District - Raigarh (C.G.) rDEFENDANT No. 11 3. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Collector, Raigarh, District - Raigarh (C.G.) rPEFBNDANT No.21 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICL]E 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUENCE OF WRIT OR WRITS, ORDER OR ORDERS. DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMDTANCES OF THE CASE. CAUrS^\^ rvyy" ^w y ,-t .\ •^- 1 ; :• I- HiGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Wrst Petition (227) No.2873 of2011 ' PETmONERS RESPOND^NTS Ku. Sharda Rawani & others. Versys Radha Bai & others. WRiTPIETITJON UNDERARrjCLE_227 OF THE CONSTITUION OF SNDIA (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Agarwai, J.) Present : Mr. Santosh Kumar Tiwari, counsel for the petitioners. IVir. S.R.J. Jaiswal, counsei forthe respondents. ORAL ORDER (14.08.2011) Heard. 1 Instant petjtion, fileckunder Artide 227 of the Constltution of India, calls in.question the legaiity and proprie.ty of the order dated 02.05.2011 passed by First Civii Judge, Class II in CivJI Suit No. 76- A/2008 whereby petitioners' application fited under Order 1 Ruie 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civii Procedure has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under:- Respondent No. 1 Radha Bai Instituted a suit agalnst respondents No. 2 and 3 for reljefof declaration, partition, separate possession and permanent injunctiQn. During pendency ofthe above suit, petitioners herein preferred an appiication under Order 1 Rule 10 r/w 151of C.P.C. for adding them as party /nter alia on the ground that the suit property being ancestral property, they are alsoftecessary partles in the suit. 3. Learned trial Court dismissed theappjication holdingthat as per the decision of civil suit No.28-A/1993 Smt. Muniya Bai, Radha Bai (plaintiff) and defendant No.1 Kanhaiya Rawani are the joint bwner of the suit iand based on adverse possession. Above judgment and decree has been affirmed by the appetlate court, therefore, the suit ^ property is not the ancestrai property and petitioners are also not necessary parties in the suit. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit: the property belongs to tate Damru Rawani, who is grandfather of the petitioners and therefore, the suit property being ancestral property, the petstioners are also necessary parties in the suit. 5. I have heard the counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the order impugned. 6. Learned trial Court had categoricaliy heid that late Damru Rawani was not the owner of the suit property Smt. Munia Bai, Radha Bal and Kanhaiya Lai became its joint owner based on adverse possession pursuant to the decree passed in the Civii Suit No. 28-.A/1993. Petitioners have also failed to produce any revenue papers showing titie of late Damru Rawanioverthe suit property. Further plaintiffs suit is, in fact for claiming title over the share of Munia Bai and therefore, the petitioners are not necessary parties in the suit. 7. In viewof above, in the considered opiniop of this court, the trial court has not committed any iilegality or irregujarity in disaiiowjng the above application warranting interference of this court under Artlcle 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. !t is wel! settied principle oftaw that this Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdlctjon under Article 227 of the Constitution of india, shouid refrain itseif from interfering with the order passed bythe Court beiow, except in such cases where perversity, illegaiity, irreguiarity or jurisdictjonal error is writ large on thfe face of the record, which is not in the present case. 9. The petition tias no merit and the same is accordingiy dismissed in limine. D/- Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge