HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRITPETITIOW ( ClLNp. 5450/20)7 PETITIONER Plaintiff KBSPONDBNTS Defendants AppUcaat VERSUS 1. 2. 3. 4. Dr. Smt. Surjeet Behl W/o Shri G.S. Behl through Power of Attomey SIiri G.S. Bebl R/o 66, Silver Estate, 7 Race course Road, Indore (M.P.). Smt. Raviader Kaur, W/o Not Known through Gajendra Singh Rajpal Rajendra Suigh Rajpal S/o Harbhajaa Siiigh Rajpal Harbhajau Siagh Rajpal S/o Not kaown AU R/oAvon Clofh Centre, Shaker N^ar Raipur (C.G.). Rajkuinar Natthani aged about 52 year, S/o Shri Bulald Das Natfhaai, R/o Edward Road, Raipur. WRIT PBTITION UNDBR ARTICLB 227 OF 1XB CQNSTITUTION OF INDIA. (SB :Hon'bte Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:- Shri P.R. Patankar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri M.K. Bhaduri, Advocate for the respondentsNo. 1 to 3, Shri Kishor Bhaduri, Advocate with Shri Pawan Kesharwani, Advocate for the respondent No. 4, ORDER ¥- (Passedon 27/09/2011) By fhis petition under Article 227 of fhe Constitution of India petitioner has challenged the legaUty aad propriety of the order dated 26/7/2007 passed by 10th Civil Judge C]ass-2, Raipur C.G. ia civil suit No. 175A/2007 wheneby application filed on behalf of the respondent No. 4 for unpleadiag bimself as a party has been allowed. Shri P.R. Pataakar, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri M.K, Bhaduri, Advocate for the respondents No. 1 to 3, & Shri Kishor Bhaduri, Advocate with Shri Pawaa Kesharwani, Advocate for the respondent No. 4 are heard. Order impugued, copy of the plaiut, copy ofthe written statement, copy ofthe appUcation and repty perused. // I SsagSa, '.'•< -^- A-£^ ( '5 4. Present petitioner has filed suit relattag to Kh. No. 20/18 agamst respondents No. 1 to 3 ia which respondent No. 4 has filed appUcation that he is owner aud occupier of Kh. No. 20/3. In application prescnt respondent No. 4 has not inentioned anything to show that Kh. No. 20/3 is a part of Kh. No. 20/18. Petitioner has speci&cally atleged ia her reply that both the land are not onc aad sauie but they are different laad in these circiunstaaces respondent No. 4 was not iiecessaiy parly for just decision of the civil suit relating to Kh. No. 20/18. By allowiug appUcation trial Court has coiunutted jurisdictional error same is not sustaiuable under the law. Consequently, petition is aUowed. Order impugaed to the extent of allowuig appUcation under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the C.P.C. is hereby set-aside. No order as to costs. 5. Interun appUcation staads disposed of. Sd/- T. P. Sharma Judge ^ ^-