^r^oj/- IN THE HtGHCOURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.l WRIT PETITION N0.3^1 f /2003^ PETITIONERS ^ ^•^ ^ ^,^.^0>"' Y« RESPONDENTS ^>- ^. .N^ \0 ^ 1. Amar Singh, aged about55 years, S/o. Mohan Singh 2. Kalyan Singh aged about 25 years, S/o. Sahdev Gond. 3. Chhakelal, aged about 55 years, S/o. Dhannu Gond. 4. Budhram agedabout 30 years, S/o. Bhaddu Singh Gond. All are residentof Vill. Masurikhar Tah. Pendra Road, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Smt. Girija Devi, aged about 50 years, Widow of late Shyamji Shrivastava. 2. Sandeep Kumar Shrivastava, aged about 29 years, S/o. Late Shyamji Shrivastava 3. Smt. Jyoti Shrivastava, aged about 23 years, W/o. Sandeep Shrivastava ^ .-.. ^,/,(.<,^-T^ (^^.^T^r^^r^^^r:^^^ (Legal representative of Jwala Prasad ^j Shrivastava aged about 85 yrs.S/o. Bhagwat Din Shrivastava, Residence of Vill. Masurikhar, Tah. Pendra Road, Dist. Bilaspur (C.G.) - died). 4. Bhuneswar Prasad Shrivastava aged about 40 years,S/o. Hanuman Prasad Shrivastava, R/o. Vill. Amarpur, P.S. Pendra , District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 5. Sultan Singh aged about 30 years, S/o. Amar Singh Gond. 6. Manglu Bhaina aged about 40 years, S/o. Deena Bhaina. (Resp. no. 5-6 residenceofVill: Masurikhar, Tah. Pendra Road, Distt. Bilaspur(C.G.) 7. State of Chhattisgarh through District Collector, Bilaspur(C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTUION OF THE INDIA J- T XI-HC-22 ^^r "^sTsn^pT, '^WT^, ^ii^li< >-3' ^T^T^f "^IW^T^I ^HW^rfi^T WR^rg'^prr^ 3?S^T 'q^^ ..(A?....&..3.ri.i..l..Q^. •^^' ^n^f'^cffw^rft^ 06/02/2004 Shri F.S. Khare, counsel fo Roacl, Distdct BUaspur iu CivM S <3ht<Lli<r<4i'l 'W^tf"? fe<^t <fa^s< '^'3rf;cP:13?H^T ^ fhe petitioners, Shri Praveen Das, Panel L^rycr for fhe respondcnte/State, Petitioner has preferred tt^is writ petition uuder Article 227 of tlie Constitution of Iiidia, bejbig aggiieved by flie oi-der datecl 23/08/2003 passed by the lear(a.ed CivU Judge, Class II, Peiidra |iitNo.227-A/2002. Brief facts giviag rise to fpin-g of fhis writ pctition are fhat father of respondent no, 1 name]| peitiiaiient mjunction regai'dmg| Masurildiar Tehsil - Pendra Roa<^, Distdct BUaspur on the ground y Jwala Pi'asad filed Civil suit for tlie suit land situated at vUlage that tlie deceased/plaiatiff was |iti possession over fhe suit land aad fhe defeudaats / petitioner^ herciD. are tryiag to dispossess him froni the suit land. Howeve|:, durmg tlie peadeucy oftlie suit ih^ origmal plaiatiffi.e., Jwala ^rasad died on 11/04/2003, On fhe deafh of Jwala Prasad, rcs^ondents no. 1 axid 2 Hioved an appMcation under Order 22, Rul^ on record as legal heirs of late has been allowed by fhc leam^ orcler. However, the petitioners 3 ofthe C.P,C. for bringiag fheni fwala Prasad aiid that application \d tiial Coml vide its impugned biereiii raised tlie poirit that apait fro33i re^pondent no, 1 to 3 herenJL, Vuiod Kuniar Shrivastava, who is tlie real son of late Jwala Prasd siace Viaod Kuinar Shrivastava] id has not been brought on record but respondent Nos, 1 to 3 iiienjfcioued that he is unwiUiag to joia as party, fhcrefore, the naaies| of respondcnts no, 1 to 3 be substitiited whercas ftie petitionejrs herem raisecl fhe objection tliat is fhe real son of late Jwala XI-HC-22- -s^r^r 'fe^FFa^T ^^i^ ^fea l^M ^ ^^ ^l^ld^, ^tiiwi^, ^RTray ^TOylS"^NI^ 3ff^T ^..to..£...&.s-..u..j.^^ 200 '^^T' ^^I^^]^< '^^T ,- O 2- Rrasad and he took part ia the f^t he is fhe sole heii' of fhe dece^ have been brought on record. The leamed tdal Court aft^ ttie application vide impugned oit by the petitk^uers/defendaiit ui tp: obser^ed^tib.at if aay person is iaf^ hcirs of the plaintiff* ou record, Order 1 Rule 10 ofthe C.P.C, Havmg heard tlie leanied <^ regard to fhe facts mid circum.^ opiiiiou that the persons who ha\| heirs of late Jwala Prasad, have |^ Sliiivastava who is fhe real mt^rested m pursumg fhis matte| case as a party. They have ^ Shiivastava is not son of Jwala Bt brmgmg Vmod Kumar Shnvas^ Jwala Prasad. In the given an alteniative remedy available j| poiat ia written stateiiienLt to|| Shrivastva is fhe real son of latel been brought on rccord, therefo^ beiag a uecessaiy party, has|| thereforc, the suit is Uable to be df f^ineral cereBiony of liis father aad ^sed/plamtitf, fhercfore, he niust |r hearmg the parties disposed of ^ier aiid as fai' as flie pomt raised |hat case is coiicenied, fhe Court iiif^rested ia bringiag fhe otlier legal tti^V can laove azi appUcation under sc|n ^S^4)Ti ^l*i<?ff^'}^^<R^i< ^r3?j^^i^r louusel for the pai'ties aiid havmg |taaces of fhe case, I aai of fhe \e been brought ou record as legal Ipeci&caUy said fhat Vinod Kiiniar of late Jwala Prasad, is not I: and he is uot wiUiag to joia fhe disputed fhat Visiod Kumar |rasad nor fhey have appUed for ^a on record as the legal hc^of i, fhe petitioners hcreni have t^ith fhem. ^ they caa mise the the effect that Viiiod Kuainr Jwala Prasad, Siace he has not j^, ttie suit staads abated and he not been brought on record, ismissed on that ground, sltu^tion ^a^Ses^S&S&Siiu T XI-HC-22 ^^^ITqRPT, ^NPI?, ^•'^ ^^?^iT fe^^ii^i ^PFiiti^T .^I^^I.^PiI^ _......i^:.LLUl., ^^ ^ii^r^^a^^•s^s - ^l - With. tlie aforesaid observl disposed of Consequentl^ I.A.No. 10055/2003 also stand di^ ^il^fca^'l'^sN^il'^'fe^A^K •^..:^pOT,^d^ ^tions, fhiss writ petition stauds M.W.P.No.3179/2003 and Iposed of Parties are entitied for certi^ed copy ofthis order. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge