i ‘ 3‘ \ m‘v‘; V n W. k a: x K/xxwnmm ' £00“? :EFEE' ‘ mvvu’LMAMwwwvv“w”?’V> . t .‘c “gr —%FEE9 é ‘ -'H\'fl . ‘l\l3)l‘\ .Vmmcwwm ‘ :10 :N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BTLA$P§R (CHHATTESGARHI / w; p! N $9600; :005 ETITIONE Anup Kumar Agrawal, S/o Shri Rammurti Agrawal, SwarooD Ram Aqrawal, S/o ,Shri Rémmurti - Agrawa!, Bharat Kumar Agrawal S/o Shri Rammurti Aqra!wal_, AI! residents of Bhatapara Distt. Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Murari Lal Agrawai, aged about 64 years,S/o Shri Krishna Kumar Agrawah R/o Bhatapara, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS , ‘EsPONDENTs /1/.’ State of Chhattisgarh 9V; Through Coilector, Painur {Chhattisgarh} 24 Dr. P. E. Jiwanmal,aqed About 66 years, S/o Shri M.Jiwanma!, R/o Bhatapara Dist. Raipur [Chhattisgarm WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONsTITUTION OF INDIA FGR ISSUANCE 9F WRIT IN NATURE OF CERTIDRARI, MANDAMUS PROHIBITION AND OTHER ‘SUITABLE WRIT OR ‘.".’RITS OIREETIOPJ QR DIRECTIOMS ORDER OR ORDERS: 3 ‘ PRS " ’ / 1'“ HIGH COURT OF CHI-IATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB: Hon’ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra Appearance: Dr. N.K. Shukla, Senior Advocate with Shn' Sanjay K. Agrawal and Sbri Sourabh Sharma, counsel for the petitioners. Shri B.P. Sharma, Advocate with Shri Kshitiz Sharma, counsel for the respondent No.2. Shri Vinod Tekam, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.1. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORAL ORDER (30/08/2010) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the trial court on 17/08/1 994 allowing the application for impleadment moved by the respondent No.2 under Order l Rule 10 of CPC. (2) The original plaintiff Rammoorthy Agrawal preferred the suit for a declaration that the order passed by the Additional Collector, Raipur on 7/08/1 990 is illegal and not binding on him. He also prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendant horn interfering in * \ his possession and user of land bearing sheet No.12-B, plot No.22, Khasra No. 49, Nayapara, PH No.10, Bhampara Circle. ‘(3) l The application under Order l Rule 10 of CPC was tiled on g1/03/1994 on the submission inter alia that the suit land on which 1 N 1 h Writ Petition No. 3460/2005 PETITIONERS : Anup Kumar Agrawal and Others Versus RESPONDENTS z State of Chhattisgarh and Another ‘2’ the plaintiff wants to raise construction is actually a part of Khasra No.46 and is not a part of Khasra No.49 which is claimed to be subject matter of the suit by the plainti$ It was stated in the application that the plaintiff has malatidely described the suit land as Khasra No 49 and has preferred the suit Without impleadmg the applicant 1e the respondent No 2 knowmg hilly well that the order dated 7/08/1990 passed by the Additional Collector and against which relief has been claimed m the suit, has been passed on the application moved by the respondent No 2 (4) The original plaintid‘ who are now represented in the suit by his legal heirs ‘i.e. petitioners, tiled their reply and stated that respondent No.2 is not claiming any relief for himself and that the suit land is a piece of government land, therefore respondent No.2 is neither a proper nor a necessary patty in the suit (5) The mal court has allowed the application by observing that the order which 1s under challenge in the suit has been passed at the Instance of the respondent No 2 therefore he seems to be a proper palty- V (6) Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned order is illegal and has been passed wrth material Irregulanty in exercise of Jurisdiction He contents that on the basis of the submission made in the application it would be apparent that when the respondent No 2 as not claimed any relief for himself in the suit land his presence is neither necessary nor required for adjudication ofthe suit r l l l I l l l i l l gt (7) Per contra counsel for the respondent No.2 has submitted that the present is a case where for proper and eEective adjudication of the subject matter of the suit presence of the respondent No.2 would be necessary, therefore the order passed by the trial court is in accordance with law. He would further submit that while exercising the power and jurisdiction under Order l Rule 10 of CPC the trial court has not committed any such error and jurisdiction which is required to be corrected by this court. (8) In the mater of Rnzia Begum Vs. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum and others, AIR 1958 SC 886, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has said that the power and jurisdiction under Order l Rule 10 of CPC is essentially in the nature of exercise ofjudicial discretion by the trial court. (9) In the matter of Aliji Momorrii & C0. Vs. Lalji Mavji & Others, (1996) 5 SCC’379,’ the Supreme Court has reiterated its earlier decision and alter observing that the controversy is no longer res integra as it has been settled by catena of decisions, has held that, where the presence of the respondent is necessary for complete and effectual adjudication of the dispute, though no relief is sought, he is a proper partyr Necessary party is one without whose presence no T effective and complete adjudication of the dispute could be made and ~ no relief granted. y i ii (10) In the mater of Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Regency Convention Centre & Hotels Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 2010 AIR l t SCW 4222 th¢ Supreme Court has again rclterated the law as to who ls a necessaxy party or the proper party m the facts and cucumstances ofthe case (l l) In the present case the respondent No2 has stated m his apphcatlon that the Addmonal Collector has passed an order agamst the plamtlE on 4/08/1990 and 7/08/1 990 Those orders have been passed at the Instance of the respondent No2 In the plamt, the plaintiff has stated the cause of acuon for fling the sutt has ansen on account ofthe order passed by the Addmonal Collector on 7/08/1 990 (l2) When the plea taken by respondent No 2 for his Impleadment 1s considered to examme as to whether he would be a necessary party m the suit or not, rt 1s borne out horn hrs apphcahon that he claimed to be the bhoomx swarm/owner of Khasra No 46 and 1s ransmg a dlspute that the plamtlh‘ mfact clams nght over hts land by mentromng the same as Khasra No 49 whrch 1s a prece ofgovemment land Accordmg to the plamtr& the sutt land 1s a part of Khasra No 49 and rs a piece of government land If ultrmately the sult 1s deetded 1n the absence of respondent No2 by holdmg that the suit land 1s a part of Khasra No 49 and not Khasra No 46 the plea taken by the respondent No.2 can never be taken into considerauon and he wnll not have any opportunity to partmpate m the proceedmgs though V he clatms that the suit land 1s m&ct a part ofKhasra No 46 (l3) Be that as 1t may since there 1s dispute about the demarcatton %fland and 1f ultnnately 1t 1s found that the suit land 1's infect a part of r5— Khasra No.49, the respondent No.2 is required to be heard in the suit. The trial court has exercised its judicial discretion in the matter and has directed impleadment ofthe respondent No.2. (l4) In the matter of Subodh Kumar Gupta and others Vs. Alpana Gupta and others, (2005) ll SCC 578, the Supreme Court has held that when trial court has exercised its discretion under Order l Rule 10 of CPC directing impleadment of a party in suit, the High Court, should not interfere in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under article 227 ofConstitution of India. (15) For the reasons stated above, this court does not hnd that the learned trial court has committed any error of jurisdiction while granting the application under Order 1 Rule 10 ofCPC. (16) Consequently, the petition under article 227 of Constitution of India fails and is hereby dismissed. / d Prash S l— - ;/ ant Kumar Mishra Judge