%sfr?if^w^^] 'K y?^;%l3i^i^ •sam HIGH GOURT Q$= ©HBATTiSGARHAT SiLASPUR r.77"7---: ——-.. W.P..iArS.22n;No.379»M2Sllri:::. .:! s Petiiioners 1. smt.BudhaBa! ^iirmaikar.Saged.about 75 y?ars, W/o.. Late | Jhumuk l-al Nirmaikar 1 2. Bhukhan Nirrrsaikar, aged about 50 years,S/6. LateJhumuk La! NjrmaSkar 3. Rajkumar @ Jugal Kishore Nirmaitear, age atsout 40 years. ,adi R/o. Pandari, nearf Danteshwsri Temple, District Raipur (C.G.) Vwsus Jahsndra yadav, gge about 4Q years, S/o. BI(]U Ram yadav, R/o. Ghaprasj Coiony, Pandart, TahsH and District Raipur:(C.Q.). , : : •}. \'\: . • : • QA/rit Petiiion under Articie 227 oTthe GpnstituSiejn of inciia} ResRondent Defendanf 1.:. Mr.H.B.Agrawai, Sr.Advocate with MrpaRkaj AgraWal, 3l(ashTiwari,coynseiforthsrespopdent. counsei for Mr.Prstc .(SB:^S-j(3n?t3is^!g;^'.R..:Shamiia, .^QRuERJQRAla,;' {4-8-2Q11V '^ tiQner $ythispetitionunderArticle227oftheGGnstitytioRofSndiathspeti hss chaiisnged the legaiity and property o ine order aated 15.3. passed by the 5^ Ciyii Judge Ciass-i, -Raipur iri Civil Suit No.135-^2&l whereby on tne basls of application fiied 6n behair;of the responoep friai Court has directed ihe petltioners to imisiead 25 aileged Maa Danteshwari Seva Samifi as defendants and nefeessary party. IMtsl nniemEseiis ! have heard iearned counsei for the psriies, psruseei ths order impug 3ndj?ther documents filed on behalfofthe petitioners. Learned counsei for ths petjtioners yehementiy submtis thstt&s pr petitionsrs hav& fited suit for p&rmaRerit injunctieR oniy against respondenf and riot againsf other persons, th t'h^r^ffirp if the ^rial reached into coRciusion that suit isyriot masntaihabie en theigi non-joindsr of necessary party, tiien su may be dismissNi ^ut noSwantioimDieadthsaiieQeciDeKon&asspartV. the 20»f1 11, fthe: sKaf i3t fGurjytof ned ^s l"ter MUfi Sa^U ..'<'. t •ii' u 'H' On -^ the other hand, ieamed counsei for respondent No.1 opposss petition and submits that as per paras 3, 8, 12, H and 15 ofthe.piaint aiiegation ihe rsspondent being a Prssidentof Samiti along with :some membersof Samitl is trying to construct doom over fhe property owned and possessed by the petttioners, therefGrs.aforesaid 25 psrsons are necessary party forjust decision of the suit. Th iy be the not 'he petitioners/'plaintiffs are t'ne best judgs to decide who necessary party, even they may take risk of dismlssai of impieadlng We necsssar/ party. 6. inthe light ofailegation made in paras 3, 8, 12, 14 and 15 which are against other persons including members of Samiti if t'ne pstitionsrs are not ready and wiiilng to impiead the persoRS y.'hQ, are disturbing the possession ofthe petitioners and jnterfering with th6 posssssion of|the petitjoners, then the petitioners csnnst be .compelled to impiead neoessary parfyto other persons. i "i^ir*£s?*i For ihe foregoing reasons, the writ petstion is ailowed and order impi.ii js hereby quashed. Considering the pieading of ihe parties and firm decision of fhe petitioners, the triai Court is raquired to frame preiiminary issue regarding ths malntaiRabiiify ofsuit on the yroand Gf non-joiRde^r of nscessary party in the llght of firm decision of the petitioners and deGlde the Issue as prellmlnary issue after provjding an oppor the parties. No oraer as to costs. t of heariria to sd/- TR.Sharma ;Judge . 'i .-\ ^l :J:1 J-'ii