^r <* ^' Ai.- V^ ^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT <'0/,^^ BILASPUR (C.G.) ^t^ W.P. (227) N0. \^^ / 2010 S.B. ^ PETITIONERS/ (DEFENDANTNO.ll (DBFENDANT N0.21 (DEFENDANT N0.31 (DEFENDANT N0.4) (DEFENDANT N0.51 (DEFBNDANT N0.6J (DEFENDANT N0.71 (DEFENDANT N0.81 RESPONDENTS (PLAINTIFFl 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. VERSUS : 1. Mohammad Gul Khan S/o Mohammad Sharif, Aged about 42 years, Mohammad Sami S/o Mohammad Sharif, Aged about 49 years, Nur Mohammad S/o Mohammad Sharif, Aged about 40 years, Nurjahan Wd/o Mohammad Sharif, Aged about 66years Mohammad Aslam S/o Mohammad Islam, Aged about 38 years, Mohammad Ajmad S/o Mohammad Islam, Aged about 30 years, Mohammad Jafar S/o Mohammad Islam, Aged about 26 years, Saida Begam Wd/o Mohammad Islam, Aged about56 years, All R/o Sothi, Tahsil- Sakti, Distt.- Janjgi-Champa (C.G.). Sakuran Begam Wd/o Mohammad Yusuf, Aged about-95 years, Caste- Muslim, R/o Sothi, Tahsil- -I /'^- ^ "~ ~.^ ^: \%\ 1 ® j S,^Ks^;fe^: j :» || i! <f^~ ^ >^'^/ ^ j^y (DEFENDANT N0.9) (DEFENDANT N0.101 (DEFENDANT N0.1 It (DEFENDANT N0.121 (DEFENDANT N0.131 (DEFENDANT N0.141 (DEFENDANT N0.15J (DEFENDANT N0.16) (DEFENDANT Sakti, Distt.- Janjgi-Champa (C.G.). Through- Special Attorney Mohanimad Naim S/o Mohammad Salim, aged about- 25 years, R/o Sothi, Tahsil- Sakti, Distt.- Janjgi- Champa (C.G.). 2. Samim Mohammad S/o Hafij Mohammad, Aged about 46 years, 3. Kaliin Mohammad S/o Hafij Mohammad, Aged about 42 years, 4. Nadim Mohammad S/o Hafij Mohammad, Aged about 46 years, 5. Alim Mohammad S/o Hafij Mohammad, Aged about 28 years, 6 Rajiya Begam D/o Mohammad Yusuf, aged about- 52 years 7 Mohammad Latif S/o Mohammad Yusuf, Aged about 76 years, 8 Mohammad Ayub S/o Yasin Mohammad, Aged about 76 years, 9 Aamna Begam D/o Mohammad Yasin, Aged about 68 years, 10 Sogra Begam D/o ® N0.17) (DEFENDANT N0.181 (DEFENDANT N0.191 IDEFENDANT N0.201 (DEFENDANT N0.211 (DEFENDANT N0.22) (DEFENDANT N0.231 (DEFENDANT N0.241 .^fis~^^;. /^>-<'% ^.^^/¥ ^fA^y 'i^sa:te,sa=S£^ Mohammad Yasin, Aged about 64 years, 11 Bilkis Begam D/o Mohammad Yasin, Aged about 60 years, 12 Aabdi Begam D/o Mohammad Yasin, Aged about 55 years, 13 Jubeda Begam D/o Mohammad Yasin, Aged about 55 years, 14 Mohammad Said S/o Mohammad Yusuf, Aged about 58 years, 15 Mohammad Nijam S/o Mohammad Yusuf, 16 Mohammad Salim S/o Mohammad Yusuf, Aged about 67 years, Respondent No. 2 to 16 R/o Sothi, Tahsil- Sakti, Distt.- Janjgi-Champa (C.G.). 17 Government of Chhattisgarh, Through- The Collector Janjgir, Distt- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.). 18 Shahnaj Begam D/o Mohammad Sharif, aged about 45 years Caste- Muslim, R/o Sothi, Tahsil- Sakti, Distt.- Janjgi-Champa (C.G.). Present Address:- Surajpur, ^ Tahsil & Police Station- Surajpur, Disst.- Sarguja (C.G.) WRIT PBTITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CQNSTITUTION OF INDIA ^c Y^v- KiGH COURT OF CHHATTiSQARH : BiLASPUR SiniGLE BE^CH : HON'BLE SHRi SViANi^DRA ^GHAN SHRiVASTAVA.J. WRJT PETiTION (227) N0,1555^01^ PETmpNERS; Mohammad Gul Khan and others RESPONDENTS: Versus Sakuran Begam and others FQRPRGNQuNCF^ENTQFQRDcR Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge HIQKCQURTGF CHHATTiSQARH : BiLASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Manindra rviohan Shrivastava. J. PETSTiONERS RESPONDENTS WRST PETITiON (227) N0.1555/201 S Moharnmad Gui Khan and others Versus Sakuran Begam and others Present: - Smt. Renu Kochar, counsel forthe petstioners. Shri Vinod Tekam, Pane! Lawyer for the State. ORDER (Passed on ....^June, 2010) This petition under Articie 227 of the constitution of india has been flled by the petitioners, aggrieved by orders dated 1/12/2009 and 17/12/2CK)9 passed in Civii Suit No.22-A/09. Vide order dated 1/12/2009 (Annexure P-4), petitioners' apptication under Order 1 Ruie 10 CPC for impieading parties has been rejected whereas vide order dated 17/12/08 (Annexure P-7), appiication under Order 32 Ruie 1 and 2 read with Ruie 15 CPC has been rejected. 2. On a query raised by this Court as to how a singie petition couid be fiied in respect of two different orders deciuing different issues, iearned counsel for the petitioner sought permission of this Cou?l to vvithdraw this petitlon, in so far as chaiienge to order dated 17/12/09 is concemed, seeking iiberty to raise the same by fiiing a separate petition. Prayer is aiiowed. in so far as chaiienge to iegaiity and vaiidity- of order dated 17/12/09 (Annexure P-7) is concerned, petitioner is granted iiberty to withdraw the same with iibeity to fiie a separate petitlon. !I®ljSI:ifi8B 4. By impugned order dated 01/12/09 (Annexure P-4), iearned Court beiow has rejected petitioners' appiication under Order 1 Ruie 10 CPC. Petitioners are defendants in this suit. During pendency of the suit, an appiication was moved for impieading Mohammad Aabid, Mohammad Naim, »Aohammad Rajjak and Jagdish Prasad Bansai as parties/defendants in the sujt, on the pieauings that during the pendency of the suit, Mohammad Aabid, Mohammad Naim and Mohammad Rajjak, sons of defendant No.23, iviohammad Saiim, sold certain property and they are aiso intending to seii the iand in dispute. Le-amed Court below has rejected the appiication on the ground that Mohammad Aabid, ivlohammad Naim and Mohammad Rajjak are claiming tltie through their father, ivloharnmau Saiim, vvho is the contesting defendant No.23 in the suit. it has also been held that piaintiff being dominus iitus and he h-aving not sought any reiief either against the successor of defendant No.23 Mohammad SaSEni or Jagdish Prasad Bansai, purchaser pendente-lite, application is liabie to be rejected. 5. Submission of iearned counsei for the petitioner Is that application under Order 1 Ruie 10 CPC was made for impjeading 3 sons of defendant No.23 rvlohamrnad Saiim as the iand acquired by Mohammad SaiSrn in partition has been recorded in the narne of his sons and in Reyenue proceedings and their Khata was aiso separated vide order dated 05/11/04 (Annexure P-8). it is argued that in order to compieteiy and effectiveiy adjudicate the controversy invoived in the suit, three sons of defenciant No.23 Moharnmad Saiim are necessary parties. it is further submitted that as Jagdish Prasad Bansai purchased some iands which were acquired by Mohammad SaJirn In partition, he is aiso a necessai-y party' as he purchased those iands frorn one Naresh Agrawal v^/ho had purchased the iand frorn Moharnmad Aabid, Mohammad Naim and /v'v% ii. ^ i ^Sfe^' l I 8. ""icll % &. I? M^m€.^ q& Mohammad Rajjak. Learned counsei for the petitioner has relied upon the decision in the cases of Lakshmjdevamma v. Naflavya and others,A|R 1949 Madras 3S3. Paramasivam Piiiai v. AQliakshnHArnj!!alaMothers_,AIRltS§ Madras 818. Amit Kurnar Shaw and another v. Fanda_Khatoon_arLd another. AIR 2005 Supreme Coyrt22G^ 6. it "is not in dispute that Mohammad SaSim is aSready a contesting Q'efendant in the suit. St is not the case of the petitioners that Fvlohammad Saiim is not interested in contesting the sult or has coiiuded with the piaintiff. Sons of Mohammad Saiim are daiming their titie oniy through their father. it is weli settied that ordjnariiy, piaintiff is dominus iitus. Petitioners have piaced on record a copy of piaint in the Civii Suit as Annexure P-1. A perusal of the sarne wouid show that the piaintiff has sought decree of deciaration and permanent injunction on the pieadings that the Eand in dispute is the joint property of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 23 who without notice and knowiedge of the plaintiff and without her consent are induiged In selling the joint property. it has been pleaded that piaintiff has not been given her share and she is entitied to share in the properly. Taking into consideration the nature of controversy invoived and the pieadings made, it is clear that the piaintiff has not sought any reljef against the proposed parties. Moreover, it is relevant to note that none of those proposed parties 'nave made any application for being impieaded as parties nor has the ptaintiff sought any reiief against thern. Reliance has been piaced on the decisions wherein it has been laid down that Court may aiiow parties to be impieaded where their presence is necessary for determinauon of the reievant matter in dispute anaE for compiete and finai adjudication of the controversy invojveu. Appiying the w-eii settSed iegai position, as iaSd down in the decisions /" I. •ti "-.. '-"^^: '"^^, %.. fc,.. ^ cited by the petitioner, In the opinion of thjs Court, it cannot be said that iearned Court beiow has commitied any jurisdictionai error or peiversifry, caiiing for inteiference by this Court under Articie 227 of the Constitution of india. Petition is therefore summariiy dismissed without notice to the otlier parties. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge D-^-