J HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WmT PETITION N0. 3612/2006 PBTITIONBR (Plaintiff) Ghanshyaut Siugh Thakur S/G(< Shri Latel Singh Thakur aged about 42 years, Occupatioa RBSPONDBNTS (Defendaats) VERSUS 1. 2. Teacher, R/ Tah. and (C.G.). , R/o ViUage Sambalpur, District Dhaintari, 4. 5. Lachluii Bai Wd/o Late Shri Shaiikar Lal aged about 36 years, R/o ViUage Gatapar, Tah. & Distt. Dhamtari, (C.Q.). Smt, Devantin Bai W/o Bhanupratap @ BaMa aged about 33 years, R/o VWscge Hasauda, Pasgaon Housiag Board, Padnuiabhpur, Distt. Durg, (C.G.). Ku. Takeshwari Bai, D/o Late Shri Shaakar Lat aged about 20 years, R/o Vill^e Gatapar, P.0, Korra, Tah, Kurud, Distt. Dhamtari, (G.G.). Krishan Siagh S/o Gopal Siagh Thakur agcd about 35 year, Driver R/o VUlage SambalpiH-, Tah & Distt. Dhamtari, (C.G.), State of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, Distt. Dhamtari, (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER A^TCLB 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. (SB :Hon'bIe Bto. T.F.SItarata, J.) Present:- Shri Rewa Shankar Patel, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ravindra Agrawal.Advocate for the respondent No. 2 85 3. ShriVinod KumarTekam, P.L. for the State/respondent No. 5. None for the respondents No. 1 & 4. ORDER 1. (Passedoa 20/09/2011( By fhis petition under Articlc 227 of fhe Coastitutfon of India petitioner has challenged the legality and propriety of the ordcr dated 21/4/2006 passed by First CivU Judge Class-II, Dhamtari (C.G.) ia Civil Suit No. 12A/2002 whereby Court below has dismissed application for impleadixig'*the purchaser of thc suit property duruig pendency ofthe suit as necessaiy party. ^i'^ss's-s,'^, ^A.^.5:<. ^ ^.,Ssf(^' ^ ^ '^. -^-- 2. Shri Rewa Shaukar Patel, Advocate for the pctittoner, Shri Raviadra ^rawal.Advocate for fhe' respondent No. 2 & 3 and Shri Viaod Kumar Tekaca, P.L. for the State/respondent No. 5 are heard. 3. Order impugned, copy ofthe ofher orders and application perused. 4. Present petitioner has already amended his pleadiag that duriag pendency of the suit defendant had sold the laud to fhe Rataesh Jaui. Court below has disniissed fhe application for iinpleading Ratnesh Jaui as a party under Section 52 of fh.e Transfer of Property Act, 1882. AUeged seller i.e. respondente No. 2 & 3 are contestiag defendants aud were ha'ving kuowledge of pendency of suit despite that they have sold fhe land to the Rati»sh Jam, Ratoesh Jain wiU not gets tifle in depend of respondents No. 2 & 3 aud he wUl be abide by judgnaent and decree of the suit, with this observation petition staads disposed of. Np oider as to costs. 5. In view ofthe above, I.A. No. 2 application for lu^ent hearing ofthe case staads disposed of. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge </ ^ ,*•