,,^":^ HIGH^PURT OF CHHATTgSGARH ATBiLASpyE Petitloner Sar^a Mangla Devi Mandlr, Acting Through Pujari and Manager Pt. Anjl Kumar Pandey Son of Late Pt.Radhe Hari Pandey aged about 40 years, Sarva Mangla Devi Mandir premises Durpa, San/a Mangia Nagar, Tah.Katghora, Distt.Korba Respondsnts 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Versus Shri Mahettar Pai Slngh S/o Late Rjshl Raj Slngh Shri Gendaii Singh @ Dhi Anand Singh S/o Late Shri Tribhuvan Singh Aged about 61 Years Shri Ravl Bhuvan Pratap Singh S/'o Late Bodh Sharan Pratap Ssngh Aged about 43 Years. Ali Cuitivator, Tanwar by caste R/o Rajgaral, Korba Tah. & Dlstt.Korba (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh Acting through CoISector Korba Registrar, Pubilc Trust Chhattssgarh, Rajpur Additionai Distt.Korbs Coiiector, Korba Sub Divisionsi Officer (Revenue) Katghora Tah.Katghora, Distt.Korba Tahsiidar, Katghora Tah.Katghora, Distt.Korba. (Writ Petitlon under Artscle 227 of the Constitutlon of Indla) Mr.K.A.Anssri, Senior Advocate wjth iVSr.Devesh Kda, counsei for the petitioner. Mr.Yas'nwant Tiwari, counsei for respondents No.1 to 3. Ivlr.Vlnod Tekam, Panej lawyer for respondents No.4to 8/State. G--.^SSy.:-^ .^^•..-.. l—^ \^>' -?- (SB: Hon'bis Mr. T.P. Sharma, J.) ORDER (23-11-2011) 1. By this writ petition under ArticSe 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has chaiienged the iegajlty and propriety of the order dated 19.6.2004 passed by the Fourth Additionai Dlstrict Judge, Bliaspur, in Civll Sult No.19A/95, whereby the iearned Fourth Additional Dlstrict Bilaspur has ailowed the appilcation filed under OrcSer 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Cjvil Procedure for Impleading respondents No.1 to 3 as a party. 2. i have heard iearned counsei for t'ne parties, perused the order Impugned, copy of the plaint, copy of the previous appSicatlon fiied by Bhushan Prasad Tlwari and Jyoti Bhushan Pratap Slngh for impieading them as partles and copies of the orders passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Misceiianeous (First) Appeai No.591 of 1996 and CIvii Revlsion i^o.957 of 1996. 3. By ailowing the application, the Fourth Additionai District Judge has passed the order that respondents No.1 to 3 be ImpSeaded as pialntiffs and copy of plaint be supplied to thsm to enabie them to flle written statement. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petitloner has filed suit only agalnst respondents No.4 to 8 for their act and has not filed any suit or claim any reilef against present respondents No.1 to 3, therefore, by aiiowing the application the triai Court has committed iiiegaiity. Learned counsei further submits that Initlaiiy the triai Court has again committed iSiegaiity by aiiowing the appiication for impleading Bhushan Prasad Tiwari and Jyoti Bhaushan Pratap Singh as defendants whlch has been quashed vide order dated 17.3.1998 passed In IViisceilaneous (Flrst) Appeai No.591 of 1996 and Civil Revision No.957 of 1996. Learned counsei contended that respondsnts No.1 to 3 'nave ciaimed and fiied appijcation of same nature v*fhich Bhushan Prasad Tiwari and Jyoti Bhaushan Pratap Singh have filed eariler. By altowing the appilcation the Court beiow has committed iSlegaiity and the Court below has ignored the order dated 17.3.1998 passed by the Hsgh Court of Madhva Pradesh. Learned counsei further contended that after order - ^ \-v\' of the High Court of IViadhya Pradesh respondents No.1 to 3 had fiied clvil sult for dsciaration aiong wlth other reliefs agalnst present petitioner Pt.Anli Kumar Pandey, therefore, even otherA'ise Innpieading respondents No.1 to 3 as parties In the present sult is futile exercise. 5. On the other hand, jearned counsei for respondents No1 to 3 opposes the petltion and submits that by fiilng civiS sult the present petitioner has ciaimed right and title over the property and the iand where tempie Is sltuated knowing the fact that it was owned and possessed by Raj Gharana respondents No.1 to 3 and heirs of Raj Gharana. By filing appiicatlon they have speciflcaijy cialmed right and titie over the property, therefore, respondents No.1 to 3 are necessary parties for just declsion of ths case in the sult. Learned counsel further submits that by passlng the order impugned and directing respondents No. 1 to 3 to be impieaded as piaintiffs the Court beiow has committed iSiegaiity. interest of the present respondents No.1 to 3 js not one and same, therefore, they cannot be impieaded as piaintiffe. S. St appears from the order impugned thst instead of dlrecting to Implead respondents No.1 to 3 as defendants the Court below has directed to implead them as plaintlffe because impieadlng the respondents as plaintiffs no question of return statement wouid srise. 7. Whlle deciding civii revision, the order impieading respondents No.6 and 7 s.e. Bhushan Prasad Tiwars and Jyoti Bhushan Pratap Singh has been reversed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. By aiiowmg the revislon and reverslng the order In Civii Revlsion the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has observed in part of para 9 and paras 10 , 11 and 12 as under:- "9............That apart, no pubiic trust was created by this document in respect of Sarvmangta Temple, Durpa and merely by stating In the object of the trust that the board of trustees shall sEso !ook after tha management of Sarvamangla tempie, Korba, it canRot be inferred that a trust was created sn accordance with iaw. Under such circumstances, the respondent No.7 could not have ciaimed that it had a rlght to be Smpjead In a dispute between the sppeiiant and the government officiajs, who ( were Interfering with the trust of the appeiSant. The respondent No.7 couid not be held to be a necessary party by any stretch of snterference In the suit. ,^<\ f.€ 1^ •fe 4 10. it is well estabilshed that the appeilant being the piaintiff was domsnus iitls and the Court could not compeS st to join to thesult; uniess the court came to the condusion that no effective decree could be passed In the sult without the presence of the respondent Nos.5 and 7. 11. Further more, they couid not have ciaimed any right or rellef In the sust as fited by the appSi'Isnl. This Court comes to the conciusion that since the appeiiant was cSasming to be a prsvate trust and a!! that It was demandlng that the respondent Nos.1 to 5 shouid not Interfere wjth the managemsnt of the tempie and its property, the respondent Nos.S and 7 should not have been aiiowed to be joined as parties to ventilate thelr grievances against the app&iisnt. Therefore, the Impugned order vvhereby the respondent Nos.6 snd 7 have been permitted to join as parfies hss been passed with material irreguSarity in exercise of junsdsction on the part of the trial Court and If this order ss aiiowed to stand, it shalS cause undue prejudice to the case of the appel'ant. 12. in view of this fact that this Court has come to the conciusion that the respondent Nos.6 and 7 are not necessary or private parties to the suit, the question of allowing thelr appiication under Order 39, Ruie 4 of the Code of CiyiE Procedure would not arsse. The order is consequentiy order and it is iiabte to be set aside on the ground that the respondent Nos.6 and 7 were not necessary parties to the suit and, therefore, their appljcatlon for modjfytng the earlisr ordsr, passed by the triaS Court, granting temporary injunction to the appeilant, couid not have been set aside at their behest." 8. In the aforesaid appllcation, virtuaiiy aforesaid partles have not claimed any interest or grievances against the petitioner, therefore, order was reversed, but present respondents No.1 to 3 have cialmed specific interest over the property and against the present petitioner, therefore, by ailowlng the appiicatlon the Court beiow has not committed any iiisgality except the direction that they be made as piaintiffs. 9. ConsequentSy, the writ petltion is dismissed wlth the observation that respondents No.1 to 3 shaii be impleaded as defendants. No order as to costs. _ -- ——-— Sd/- T.P.Sharma Judge ^