CRP 273/2006 BEFORE 8.9.2006 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE HN 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 26.6.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr Division), Bongaigaon, in MS No 22/99. The afores aid MS No 22/99 was initially filed against the defendant petitioner No 1 , the present petitioner and its officials. Thereafter by way of amendment, the name of the defendant Nos 5 to 7 have been impleaded as co-defendants. The present petitioner by filing an application in the said sui t captioned as \an application under Order 1, Rule 10 read with Order 7, Rule 5, CPC and Order 7, Rule 11 and section 151, CPC\ prayed for dismissal of the suit and to pass necessary order on the ground that the newly impleaded defendant No s 5,6, and 7 has not been incorporated in the body of the plaint to which and ob jection was also filed by the plaintiff. The aforesaid defendant Nos 5, 6 and 7 were impleaded later on. From the impugned order it is clear and transparent tha t the newly impleaded defendant Nos 5, 6 and 7 appeared in the suit and filed th eir written statements wherein they have stated that that during the period of o peration of the mill the defendant No 1 entered into contract with different dea lers, contractors, suppliers, etc of its own for its business deals with them fo r operation and management of the mill, and they were no way connected with such business deal with the defendant No 1. The learned trial Court also observed th at the plaintiff in their written objection that there is no cause of action fo r the suit against the impleaded defendants and the plaintiff seeks no relief ag ainst these said newly impleaded defendants. The defendant No 1 having failed to satisfy the outstanding dues, the plaintiff filed the suit for realization of t he 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 st atements filed by the newly impleaded defendants are sufficient to decide the di spute and their presence is not required for effective adjudication of the dispu te in question. Accordingly, on such consideration, the learned trial Court reje cted the application of the defendant No 1 / petitioner. The petitioner is a co-defendant in the suit and is contesting of the suit on merit. The allegations made against the plaintiff by the petitio ner / defendant No 1 do not disclose that any right of the present petitioner ha s been adversely or otherwise affected by the alleged inaction of the plaintiff. The defendant / petitioner is to stand on is own legs regarding liabilities all eged against it in the suit. The learned trial Court passed the impugned order u pon proper and effective consideration of the issue raised before him, I do not find any jurisdictional error to exercise extraordinary superintending jurisdict ion of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution to interfere with the im pugned order and hence, this revision petition is dismissed being devoid of meri t. However, it is observed that since the suit is of the year 1999, the learned trial Court shall decided the suit as expeditiously as possible. JUDGE gch