PETITIOENRS (Plaintiffs) Note: VERSUS RESPONDENTS HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (227)N0. 3990/2010 Radheshyam Agrawal, aged about 79 years, S/o late Shri Kalyan Prasad Agrawal, Meerabai, aged about 49 years, W/o Shri Nandkishore Agrawal, Both petitioners are represented through their General Power of Attomey Holder Shri Nandkishore Agrawal, aged about 53 yei.ars, S/o Shri Radheshyam Agrawal, All residents of Burhapara Near Hanuman Temple, Raipur, Tahsil and Distt. Raipur (C.G.). M/s. Shreeram Engineering Co., A partnership firm, Through Partner Shri Mehtaroo Prasad @ Narayan Prasad Dubey, S/o Rarooha Prasad Dubey, aged about 84 years, r/o village Beinta (near Simga), Tahsil Tilda, Distt. Raipur (C.G.), Presently r/o C/o Prakashchand Tiwari, S/o Murli Manohar Tiwari-248 Sundar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.). Kanti Bai, Wife of Narayan Prasad @ Mehtaroo Prasad Dubey, r/o village Bemta (near Simga), Tahsil Tilda, Distt. Raipur (C.G.), Presently r/o C/o Prakashchand Tiwari, S/o Murli Manohar Tiwari-248 Sundar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.). Prakash Chand Tiwari, aged about 72 years, S/o Murli Manohar Tiwari, r/o 248,. Sundar Nagar, Raipur Tahsil and Distt. Raipur (C.G.). Dhananjay Tiwari, S/o Shri Prakash Chand Tiwari, aged about 46 years, r/o 248, Sundar Nagar, Raipur Tahsil and Distt. Raipur (C.G.). ......Defendants No. 1 to 4. Smt. Mehroonnisha, aged abaut 53 years, W/o Shri Abdul Rajjak, r/o Idgahbhatha, Rai-pur, Tahsil ancl Distt. Raipur (C.G.). Sheikh Mukhtyar, aged about 60 years, S/o Shri Haji Farid Ahmed Ashrafi, r/o Modhapara, Raipur, (C.G.). PETITIONJJNDERARnCLE 226/227 OF THE CONSITTUTION OF INDIA. (SB :Hon'ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:- Shri Ratan Pusty, Advocate for the petitioners. Respondents not mentioned. ORAL- ORDER (Passedon 30/07/2010) 1. Heard. 2. Order impugned dated 18/6/2010 passed by 6th Civil Judge Class-1, Raipur in civil suit No. 523-A/2002 whereby application filed on behalf of the respondentsNo. 5 & 6 under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of. Clvil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'the Code') for impleading them as a necessary party has allowed, perused. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners subraits that petitioners have filed civil suit against respondents No. 1 to 4 in the year 200 1 and after closing the evidence of petitioners/plaintiffs present respondents No. 5 & 6 who has claimed that they have purchased the property in the year -2001 have filed the petition for impleading them as a party under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code after lapse of 9 years specially when aforesaid facts was well within the knowledge of respondents No. 58s 6. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that respondents No. 5 SE 6 would ultimately be bound by the decree passed by the Civil Court on the ground that they are claiming and they may claim the title and interest over property through respondents No.lto4.As per material collected on behalf of the eaSSS'SSSiS'3i'sK petitioners. registered sale deed has been executed by the respondent No. 1 through its partner on 27/2/2001 although in case respondents No. 5 & 6 are not made'party even then they would be bound by the judgment and decree which may ultimately be passed in the suit. Considering the order inipugned and to avoid any further multiplicity and complication of the suit no interference would be proper but admittedly respondents No. 5 Ss 6 have not filed any application since last 9 years shows that they are not interested in eariy and timely disposal of the case, while allowing the application Court was under obligation to compensate the plaintiffs by awarding adequate cost but Court below has not awarded such cost. Consequently, with the direction that aforesaid application is allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs. 2,000/- within 30 days to the petitioners from today by the respondents No. 5 & 6. Court below is further directed to ensure the early disposal of the case; this petition is stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- • P. Sharma Judge