Petitioner Piainfjff Resoondent .>:'Defendant COURT OF AT Writ Petltion (Art.2271 of 2010' Preetamchand Gupta aged about 72 years, S/o Late MeSaram Gupta (Karta HUF), R/'o Jawahar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) versus Mangat Rai Jindai aged about 45 years, S/o Shri P.C. Gupta, C/o Bhagtandj Shop, M.G.Road, Raipur (Writ Petition under Artlcle 227 ofthe Constitution of indla) Mr.iVSanoj Paranjape, counsei for t'ne petstioner. Mr.Sumesh Bajaj, counse! forthe respondent. (SB: Hon'ble.iVlr. T.P. Shsrma, J.) ^ORAU (25-7-2011) 1. By thls petitlon under Articie 227 of the Constitution of india the petjtioner has chalienged the iegaSity and propnety of the order dated 4.8.2010, dssmjssing the appiication fiied for Empieading Bank of Indla as a hecessary party and order dated 7.9.2010, dismisslng the appllcatlon reiating to amendment of sforesald fact jn pialnt in Civl! Sult No.199-A/Q8 by ths 3rt Clvii Judge Class-Si, Raipur. ^^have heard iearned counsel for the partses, perused both the orders Impugned and other dQCum,ents ftled on behaif of the parties. 3. By fjiing civij suit the present petitloRer has clalmed reilef that the suit property Is Hindu Undivlded Family property. By subsequent appiication for implsading Bank of indla and flling such amendment appllcatlon the petitioner has tried to amend the pieading that the respondent has mortgaged the property to Bank of the india, therefore, Bank of Indla, Pschpedi Naka, Rslpur is a necessary' party. 4. No reilef agalnst alieged new party l.e. Bank of India hss been claimed by the petitioner/piaintiff, even it was not possibie for him to cjalm any relief against such mortgagee. For dedaration of the property as Hindu Undsvided Famiiy property, any pSeading relating to mortgage or any ^ ^.... ^. ._.„-„„ .^-..^^^^:^Z^sS^s;^ '^. 1 tk: "cy' ^^ -^ ^ question relating to mortgage of the property Is not resevant, even otherwlse, co-parcener or co-owner of the property ss competsnt to mortgage the property and mortgage only creates charge on the property. 11 does not create any title over the property. VVhiEe dismisslng the appiication for amendment In the pfalnt and for impieadment of the party ths Court below has not committed any iilegallty warranting interference In exerclse of supervisory jurisdlction. \ ^. CGnseqisently, the writ petltlon belng devoid of merit is llabje to be dlsmissed and It ss hereby dismlssed. No order as to costs. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge (^