ea^'s^" ^ ^''"': ^ ilKlaLK u*.»i :-wr-s ^ s^ ?_:- IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) W.P. (227) No. 1\^3 pf 2010 PETITIONER Defendant No.2 Manohar S/o. late Dwarika Prasad Soni, aged about 41 years, R/o. Shivam Nagar, In front of Nagar Nigam Udyan, Durg, Tahsil and District Durg (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS y .^ ^°/ ^y..s i;S^ ^^ ^' <•" .^-7( .•'•^••^7 ,y^' \ ""^^ •-. '^.f/ •wi^'jy /:1) Pravinchand, aged about 32 years, S/o. late Premchand Surana, ^2) Tikamchand @ Sunil Kumar, aged about 30 years, S/o. late Premchand Surana, ,:3) Gulabchand @ Anil Kumar All R/o. Jawahar Chowk, Durg, Tahsil and District Durg M.P. (now C.G.) Plaintiffs /:4) Smt. Dhanwantin Bai, aged about 61 years, Wd/o. late Dwarika Prasad Soni <S) Indarchand aged about 39 years, S/o. late Dwarika Prasad Soni, :6) Gulabchand aged about 36 years, S/o.- late Dwarkika Prasad Soni, Respondent 4 to 6 R/o. Shivam Nagar, In front of Nagar Nigam Udyan, Durg, Tahsil and District Durg (C.G.) Defendant Np.l, 3 &4 JJ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^^FS^: /->•' HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BBIASPUR Sinate Bench: Hon'bte Shri Justtce Prashant Kumar Mishra PETITIONER Defendant No.2 RESPONDENTS Writ Petition (227) No.1193 / 2010 NtencAar Versus Pravinchand and others. Shri H.B. Agrawval, Sr. Advocate with Shri J.K. Gupta, counsel for the petftioner. WRTT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 227 W THE CONSTrWTICWl OF IWMA ORALORDER (22.03.2818) In a sutt for eviction, after the death of ong'inal tenant, two of his daughtere were arrayed as defCTdant No.5 and 6, at the instant of the ptaintiff. Wten summons of the suit could n<A be swved on them as they are r^iding at the distance frtace after their marriege, the ptaintiff moved the sutgect applte^ion for del^ion of the name of defendants No. 5 & 6 from the array of farties in the suit. This applteation of the ptaintiff has teen allowed by the trial Court. {2) Counsel for the petitioner submits that o»wehaving atlowed the prayer for impleadment of said defKKlants ttie trial Court ought not to teve ordered for deletion because the saki order of deletionamounts to review <rf its eartier orcler. (3) tt is settled law that in a sutt for evicBon, aftw death of the or^ihal tenant, onty such tegal representat'iv^ who are in occupation of the tenanted premises can be saki to be neces^iry parties? 'CTie sakt defendants No. 5 & 6 have settled in distance place after their marrii^e, thus their presence in the suit is nrt necessary. Even ^otherwise, if according to the p^itioner their presence is necessary or •F .4' ;-'-5i £ S. -rf^Si.. % s^.Sh^;^.'-. ^' ••1B •?s^ K - 2- they are in occupation in the premfee, he shoukl n<d be bothered because del^wi of a party is ahways at the risk of party who is seeking deletion. (4) The trial Court has nrt committed any error of jurisdretion in passing the impugned order. The instant petition under Articte 227 of the Cwistitution of India faBs and is hereby dismissed. Sd//- prashant Kumar Mishra Judge