CRP 272/2006 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE H. N. SHARMA Heard Mr SS Sarma, learned senior counsel for the petitioner. By filing this revision petition under Article 227 of the Consti tution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 6.7.2006 passed b y the learned Civil Judge (Sr Division), Bongaigaon, as executing Court in MS No 51/99. The aforesaid MS No 51/99 was initially filed against the defendant pet itioner No 1 , the present petitioner and its officials. Thereafter by way of am endment, the name of the other defendants 5 to 7 have been impleaded as co-defen dants. The present petitioner by filing an application in the said suit captione d as \an application under Order 1, Rule 10 read with Order 7, Rule 5, CPC and O rder 7, Rule 11 and section 151, CPC\ praying for dismissal of the suit and to p ass necessary order on the ground that the newly impleaded defendant Nos 5,6, an d 7 has not been incorporated in the plaint to which and objection was also file d by the plaintiff. The aforesaid defendant Nos 5, 6 and 7 were impleaded later on. From the impugned order it is clear and pertinent that the newly impleaded d efendant Nos 5, 6 and 7appeared in the suit and filed their written statements w herein they have stated that that during the period of operation of the mill the defendant No 1 entered into contract with different dealers, contractors, suppl iers, etc of its own for its business deals with them for operation and manageme nt of the mill. The impleaded defendants were no way connected with such busines s with the defendant No 1. The learned trial Court also observed that the plaint iff in their written statement that there is no cause of action for the suit ag ainst the impleaded defendants and the plaintiff seeks no relief against the sai d newly impleaded defendants. The defendant No 1 having failed to satisfy the ou tstanding dues, the plaintiff filed the suit for realization of the said amount. The learned trial Court further held that the impleadment of the defendant Nos 5, 6 and 7 in the cause title of the plaint and in the written statements filed by the newly impleaded defendants are sufficient to decide the dispute and their presence is not required for effective adjudication of the dispute in question. Accordingly, on such consideration, the learned trial Court rejected the applic ation of the defendant No 1 / petitioner. The petitioner is a co-defendant in th e suit and conducting the proceeding of the suit will not be affected on merit. The allegations made against the plaintiff by the petitioner / defendant No 1 d o not disclose that any right of the present petitioner has been adversely or ot herwise affected. The defendant petitioner is to stand on is own legs regarding liabilities as allowed in the suit. The learned trial Court passed the impugned order and upon proper and effective consideration of the issue raised before him , I do not find any jurisdictional error to exercise superintending jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution to interfere with the impug ned order and hence, this revision petition is dismissed. However, it is observe d that since the suit is of the year 1999, the learned trial Court shall decided the suit as expeditiously as possible.