nt'< •..lll )i. IN THE HIGH COURT OF TUDIOVTURE AT BILASFUR CHHATnSGAKH W.P. N0. IS 4-^~ /2005 PETHIONER . x Proposed Applicant RESPONDENTS PLABSTI^FS a1fl^ ! '.•^ ^ 4] Maheshwar Kumar Singh, Aged about 68 yrs, S/o.LateSamanujShaTanSinghDev,R/o. Surguja Palace, Ainbikapur, Distfc Surguja (C.G.), Present R/o. Katiimandu/ Nepal, Through: His Power of Attdmey Holder, T.S. Singh Dev. S/o. Late Maharaja, M.S. SinghDev R/o. Kottughar, Ambikapur, Surguja (C.G.) * .. • . • . • <VERSUS V 1] RamjanamPrasadJaiswal,Age56yrs S/o. Shri Devnarayan Prasad jaiswal, 2] Smt. Kanti Devi/j W/o. Rainjanam Jaiswal, Aged about45 years, 3] Mukhdiand Prasad S/o. Shri Ramjanam Jaiswal, Aged about 26 years, AU ab<^ R/o. Bahupara Nagar, Ambikagm, P.S. &Tahsffl Ambilapm, Distt. Sttrguja(G.e.) Ravindranath Dubey S/o. £ate Prabhunatti Dubey, Aged aboutj 50 years, R/o. Brarahapara, Aintnkapur, DistrictSurguja(G.G.) Sint. Mansa Shukla W/o. Shrarain Shukla, Aged about 42 yeais, Kj/6. Mayapi-u-; Ambikapur, Distfc StH'guja (C.G.) • Vija5rnath;Dubey S/o. Shri Shivdjtiari Diibey,Agedabout®years, ' • • "''''•••• . •• ':'• • '.• fl'nathnafii . tDubey, S/o. .Shivdhan Dubey, Aged about 63 years, Kairitiarsh]pHbeyS/o. Shivdhari Dubey, Aged^about 6tiyears, y: ^manuj ©ubeyS/o. Shivdhari ©ujbey, Age3iahoBt57years, ji iCRespondeats/'deferid^hts) 'Thr g|h:&}13fiGtQT,SuTgu]aj(C.^^ •slltl iifi';! lil " •!xl; WMT PETmONUNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTTTUTION OF INDIA ma Fll XI-HC-22 31^1^1: R-ii* 311^1 isti^ yf?a 1:IB:! EBI iiiG |iSiii ^- ? II '3';5t'iipil<;l<i,^wi'|!U'lis,®ai'yi<. .3TFi^^S^^; ITS>t ^ 11*WlTgi*ll<*>m.s& ^"w 20° aiT^t ^<iraR~S{ 7/4/2005 *1^^^t^^ '^|fe^^>1i'^K ^T sriiipt sn^i ShriManoj Paranjpefor th^petifioner, Shn Pankaj ShTiyastava,P.^., forthe St&te/respQndent no.IO. Application for urgent hearj application under Order 1 Rule 1 hg is allowed. Heard.- , » Petitioner Maheshwar Kum|ar Singh has filed this writ pefition against *t- .•I.. ' the order passed*by the {rialv ij-ourt in: C.S; JNo.t-A/2003, whereby his ^ CPC forJQining him as a party defendant has been rejeGted. eounsel.for the petitioner 4ybmits. ihat respondents no.1 to 3 are the. plaintifis. 'They filed.i^ suit ior |3erma]aeat injunctiGui.ag^^ no.4 to 9 aiidjoined .the State/rc was filed^on l!9/S/1994,:coEY<:>f since HiOTe',thaH,:tElyears.RespGM (Annexure-P72j:l<3eaying,ihe_elsii|a/and:they further filed a .counter. clalm against the plaiiitiffs, wKich ts nc^marked but is filed at page t'7 of! the writ petition. ; '.- , . "-**.• . . ": . .' On perusal.of recpTd^it aj>pears that the appiJGatioa •under^Order 1 Rule 10 CPC; dafed 24^3.17260^! I7/2/2QG5, -wheriithe caqe;,wag^ieet; ioT^evidenee.' TUe.saii^apgBcgilion; was objected to by e>de{endahtS/j;es been noted by^the oourt below fl have filed the cbuhter elaim iorjpi court ;below lliat. under the :spi counter claiiii ^ia there, agaiast |speindent no.lQ'alsoas aparty. The suit ^plainf is Annexure-P/1, which.is;,pending. ijdents rio,4 to 9 filed the writteia sfatement iwasj,fi)ed.|;t3y tHe,petftioHer;asUate.as,;on |sbndeints^ni3.<4Ao Q.veheraeatly.,, Ttie Court below after heanng fhe parties ec|riMdered^l^ m^ It has lat thls deifendants/resRondeHfs ilq;4 to 9 Sssession. It faas further beerinotiedsBythe, fcpial faets anci cireuinstaiices •wliSTe:tlae: the 'plamtiffs,, the joinrng of getitionfir •"":-•-^i^—-- Ap; .1 SJ^^'^III ••' i * sn^i'^1 K;-ii.<ti sn^i '^?T^)'^T?ff -'v^ 'S^I •^WW'1!, Bflly'ie, (°«'ll<l1< "q^ra? _.W.!;.lih^./rL ra?"v'~^""l'"""-"7"""M li^ WWITgiWqi an^r ^<nw ^ift^T — 2-- +ll4ld4l'l 4w^ "^ fet^ <r<i-^(^ ^ slfigtT ail^r Maheshv/ar Kumar Singh as co-4efendant at the stage of evidence is not proper, It has also been noted bil showing that he has sold the proj not applied those persons to be joi^ have not come up. Even otherwi^ the assumption that there may b^ may fall in his share. It is hypoth^tic. The court below has consic) gone through the material placed the facts and circumstances as thl also filed bv the defendants agd petitioner being hypothetical and] record and not applied to join intermeddle in somebody else ma< proceedings, the petitioner is not| court below has rightly observed \ separate suit praying for the re| othervyise, so far as the jurisdictij Court in its decision in the case d ccnd others reported in 2003 AIR\ case for interference under Article The petition deserves to be , \ the court below that on petitioner's own ^ierty to various persons in pieces, he has <f \ied as the defendants. Those persons also !e, the case put up by the petitioner is on some surplus land and this surplus land tered all the aspects. This Court has also Ibefore it and is of the opinion that under by exist in the case where counter claim is iinst the plaintiffs and the case of the purchasers from him are not there on as party and the petitioner wants to [ter and the object is only to protract the a necessary party for adjudication. The [hat if the petitioner desires he may file a |iefs, which he wishes to claim. Even bn of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is concerneifl, that has been amply explained by this if Surua. DevLSai vs.^anichctndeT 8sci SCW 3872 and applying those tests not a 327 of the Constitution of India. .nd' is accordingly dismissecL- ^^ ^^