£ ég HIGH COURT OF CHHAT‘i'ISGARI-i. BILA$PUR W.P. i Under Art. 227) No. 6047 of 2008 mi; Petitiogyndegngwrticié 22? of the Constitution of India ADQeal’anCE $hri Mano; Paranjape, Counsel for the petitioner. ' UKALrJRDtR (24.15.299a) SUML KUIVUXR SINHA. J. Heard. The petitioner/piaintifr‘ has riled thlspetltlon under Article 2‘27 of the Constitution of indla challenging the validity of the order dated 4.920% passed in Civil Suit No. 16-AQOQ6 by ii!“ Cit/i! Judge Class-ll, Ralpur wnereby the application tiled by the petitioner/plaintiff under order 1 Rule ’lU of the Code of Civil Procedure has been dismissed by the triai Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when in the written statement it was disclosed by the defendant that she has purchased this land from one Samta Grin Nirman Samiti, t Chlrhuidlh, then, the petitioner had to move an application under Order 1 Rule it) of the Code of Civil Procedure tor'impleading the said Samta Grin Nirman Samiti: Chirhuidin as party defendant No.2 PETITIONER Neanoj Kumar Pansari (wrongly typad ag “Amwi”; Sic. Late Jaggu F’rasad @ Liii Pansari, Aged about 27 years, R/o. Liii Chowk, Raiiaur "l‘ahsii and District Raipur (my) Vai‘sas RESPUNDENT Smt. $haiu Agrawai, W/o. Dinesh AgrawaL R/a. Narmada Para, Be‘nmd Hotet‘ Satkar, Tahsii and District Raipur (CG) WP. i227’ N0. 6(34? of 2003 WW wnl‘c‘n has been dismissed by the tnai Court saying that omy on the diSCIosure of the fact that the Iand was purchased by the detendaht from the said Samtti, it cannbt be added as a party in the suit. It appears that the trial Court has held that the proposed defendant is neither a necessary party nor a proper party tor iawtui disposal of the suit. correct. ”the said contention of the trial Court does not appears to be The settled position of law is that plaintiff is the aominus mus in the su having every rigt to impead a person o his coice whom he fel t wt ii h ll b ub i f th tai t d in View o the abovel e impugned ore passed by he trial ourt cannot be suaned. ' he petiion file under rce 2 o the (30nsun of lnia s aowed. The impugned order passe by e tral Court set ase. e application e y e petiner/paintiff und rer 1 Ru 1 or PC i $ th t s allowed. ince this order has been passed ex-parte on e first date o hearing o e wr peon, therefore, it sail ’ e open to e respondent/defendant to e appropriate appcation efore ths Court e ees aggreve wth e order passed by s ourt. A th d fll dis f J ccordingly, is writ petition stans inay posed o. /// so! ‘ Sw 1¢“ it h i f h es as a necessary or proper party or the iaui dsposa of the suit whic sha e sject to a cause ot action arose n tavour o e pntilt’ against he sai party. f th dr. t C sti T t d Atil 27 f tittio d i ll d th i is td Th fild b th tiol er Cd le 0 C f th it titi n b th til li b i if w»a. r‘ sh fl id i th thi C / ha . 9