HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR {Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India} Present: Petitioner in person. Mr. Atul Pandey, counsel for the respondent. Sinqle Bench: Ho’n’ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J ORAL ORDER (20-7—201 1) 1. By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged Iegaiity and propriety of the order dated 4-1—2011 passed by the 3rd Additionai District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No.5B/2010, whereby the application for impleading the person as necessary party in terms of Order 1 Rule 9 of the CPC filed on behalf of the petitioner/defendant has been dismissed by the Court below. . 2. i have heard the petitioner in person and’learned counsel for the respondent, perused the petition, copy of the order impugned and other documents. 3. The petitioner vehemently argued that he has acted as agent of other persons and has executed agreement. Although he has admitted the aforesaid execution of agreement and further requirement of execution of sale deed by him, but agent is not liable for further execution of the agreement or not authorized to proceed for the act on behalf of his masters unless authorized specifically. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the petition. 5. The respondent has filed suit for specific performance of contract on the basis of documents executed by the petitioner in which he has specifically mentioned that the petitioner was authorized to execute agreement and to execute sale deed which has not been denied by the petitioner. ln these circumstances, the ‘ Court below has‘dismissed the application filed under Order 1 Rule 9 of the \% l Writ Petition (Art. 227) No.2248 of 2011 PETITIONER/: A.V. Shridhar aged about 33 years S/o Late (Defendant) A. Rama Rao R/o Gupta Gali Mannu (in Person) Chowk Tikrapara Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Defendant) Versus RESPONDENT/: Animesh Raizada aged about 35 years S/o (Plaintiff) Shri N.K. Raizada R/o Tiwari Chal, Tahsil and District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh CPC. The petitioner has not pleaded in his written statement that the suit is bad on the ground of not impleading the persons who are necessary,party. The petitioner has filed the aforesaid application and has intimated the plaintiff] respondent. In these circumstances, the aforesaid persons were found to be neéessary party and the fact that the plaintiffhas not made them as party, the suit may be bad, but the defendant/petitioner cannot compel the plaintiff to make the aforesaid persons as necessary party.. While passing such order, the Court below has not committed any illegality requiring interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. Consequently, the petition is liable to wmissed and it is hereby dismissed. f/f,’§$/-) T.P. Shanna 1’ Judge Soma