c o IN THE HIGH-COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ^63 WRIT PETITION [227] OF 2010 PETITIONER: PLAINTIFF Om. Prakash Varshney, s/o late Sarbati Lal Varshney, aged about 75 years, r/o Lakholi Naka, Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS RESPONDENTS: APPLICANTS 1TO 5 • DEFENDANTS 1T03 vwy v/^w ^(?AON ^/^\ff/ -.^^' ./ ''l^y-<<" •^% ^ -^' 1. Nand Kaumar Varshney, aged about 58 years, 2. Raj kumar Varshney, aged about 50 years, 3. Vijay kumar Varshney, aged about 48 years, 4. Praveen Kumar Varshney, aged about 44 years, 5. Ashok Kumar Varshney, aged about 42 years, All sons of late Shri Panna Lal Varshney and all residents of 5/628 Gular Road, Aligarh (U.P.) 6. Shri Shankar Lal, s/o Late Sarbati Lal, aged about 75 years, r/o Lakholl Naka, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 7. Shri Anil Kumar Varshney, s/o Shri Shankar Lal, aged about 50 years, r/o Lakholi Naka, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 8. Shri Sunil Kumar, s/o Shri Om Prakash , aged about 50 years, r/o House No. 8/165 Mitra Nagar, Aligarh (U.P.) ^,^/'e^>v^, 5 PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONTITUTION OF INDIA ^•R'Ss^g^^E^R^^'^^^- ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra PETITIONER Writ Petition (227) No. 5169/2010 Om Prakash Varshney Vereus RESPONDENTS : Nand Kauniar Varshney and others Appearance: Shri Pramod Verma, Senior Advocate with Shri Sumit Verma, counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S. Agrawal, counsel for respondents No.l to 5 on caveat. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ESDIA ORAL ORDER (22.09.2010) This petition is directed against the order passed by the trial court aUowing the application for impleadment filed by respondents No.l to 5 under Order 1 Rule 10 ofCPC. (2) The petitioner has filed the suit for dissolution of the partnership firm M/s Omprakash Pannalal and the partition of the properties ofthe partnership firm amongst the partners ofthe finn. (3) The subject application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC was moved by the respondents No.l to 5 on the submission that they are the sons of Pamialal who was partner of finn M/s Omprakash Pannalal. The firm acquired, owned and possessed properties mentioned in the plaint and that the said finn was never dissolved and \ as such they being the sons of partner Pannalal have interest in the out come ofthe suit. This application was contested by the plaintiffas —aia ;tlSgi s'^.f '^ ^•.y'' -2- well by the defendant. However, the tfial court has granted the application. (4) Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the original firm in which Pannalal was a partner stood dissolved in 1972, therefore the said Pannalal or his sons who are the applicants in the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC are neither necessary nor proper parties and the trial court has committed a serious error in allowmg the application. (5) Counsel for the respondents No.l to 5/caveator has argued that the question as to whether the original firm was dissolved or not and to what extent Pannalal had interest in the property ofthe finn are all questions to be determined in the suit and therefore the impleadment is necessary to protect their interest, if ultimately it is found that the original firm was not dissolved. (6) In the matter ofRazia Begum Vs. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum and others, AIR 1958 SC 886 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observedthat Ifae jurisdiction under Order 1 Rule 10 ofCPC is in the nature ofexercise ofjudicial discretion and not ofinitialjurisdiction. (7) In the matter of Subodh Kiunar Gupta and others Vs. Alpana Gupta and others, (2005) 11 SCC 578, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that in exercise of limited jurisdiction conferred under article 227 of the Coastitution of India, the High Court should iiot interfere with the discretion exercised by the High t^ ^Court in the matter ofimpleadment ofparties. ]I ^ 3- •')p (8) Having gone through the order passed by the Trial Court and the documents annexed with the writ petition, this court is of the opinion that the trial court has not committed any error ofjurisdiction or error in exercise of discretion warranting interference under article 227 ofthe Constitution oflndia. (9) The instant petition under article 227 has no substance, which fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge