M IN THE HON'BLE HIGjLCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) w.P.(Art227)NO. \^^ / 2010 IGII PETITIONER Defendant 0\e....-"" L y^?"M^af;<c +1^^^01" RESPONDENT Plaintiff ^^ ^;.-ly!" Liyakat Ali, son of late Subhan Ali, aged about 48 years, R/o. Chhota Para, Raipur (C.G.) Versus Mohammed Ali, son of Subhan Ali, aged about 45 years, R/o. Baijnathpara, Raipur (C.G.) ^^^•L:^1 y% WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^ L ^ HIGH COURTOF CHHATriSGARH : BSLASPUR PETITiONER WRIT PETSTiON (227) N0.1554^2040 Liyakat ASi Versus Mohammed AtJ RESPONDENT Sinale Bench: Hon'bie Shri IVianiiidra Mohan Shrivastova. J. Present - Shri G.M.Hasan, counsei for the petitloner. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 9th day of April, 2010) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed assailjng legaiity and ^lidlty of order dated 13/01/2010 passed by 8 Civli Judge Class 2 Raipur in Civil Suit No.13A/2009 whereby petitioner's appliGation under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC has been rejected. 2. Respondent/piaintiff has filed a surt for recovery of possession and damages against petitioner who is his younger brother. During pendency of the suit, petitioner filed an appiication under Order 1 Ruie 10 CPC for impleading MunicipaJ Corporation, Raipur as defendant. in the appiication, it has been stated that on 13/07/2007 Corporation issued notice to the respondenVplaintifffor vacating shop in dispute and handing over possession. The Corporation thereafter demolished 15-16 shops induding the shop in dispute. tt was stated in view of the aforesaid, Corporation is a necessary party. The aforesaid appiication has been rejected by the iearned Triai Court vide impugned order dated 13/01/2010. ^ " i 3. Submission of iearned eounsei for the petitioner fihat as tthe shop in dispute was aiiotted by the Corporation to the petitioner anci was aiso (jemoiished by the Corporation therefore the Corporation has become a necessary party in the suit. it is also argued that petifioner was in possession of the shop in ciispute since 1997 paying ail the rent and taxes to the Corporation and therefore Corporation is iiable to pay compensation and damages to the petitjoner and not to the respondent. For thSs reason aiso Corporation is a necessary party. it is aiso contended that as the Corporation cancelled the leaae ofthe respondent/piaintiff, therefore the cause of aciion does not suwive for consideration and the suit was iiable to be dismissed as it was the petitioner alone, who, from the beginning was the aSiottee and real owner of the shop, The last submission is that as the petitioner was eamlng his iivelihood by running shop from which he was evjcted, h©is not liabie to pay any damages and compensation to the respondent/piaintiff, for this reason aiso the Corporation has become the necessary party. 4. Perusai of ihe impugned order dated 13X)1/2010 (Annexure P4) shows that the petitioner moved the application at the stage when plaintiff's evidence has been recorded and defendanfs cross examination is yet to be compieted. Learned Court beiow has rejected the appiication on the ground that no reiief has been sought against Corporation and if shop in dispute has been demoiished by the Corporation during the pendeney of the suit, it is the matter of dlspute between the respondent/piaintiff and the Corporation. Learned Trial Court has also stated in the order that plaintiff being "dominus iitus", cannot be oompdled to impiead as defendant one against whom he has not sought any reSief uniess the iaw requires impleadment of such persons as pariy in the suit. Relyir^ upon decision {n the case of Mittulai Vs. Bhirulal 2001 (ii) MP. Weekly Note 166 and d "" :\ ^. ... % 'tm3^ 1 /^^J ^b IN—^ Dy"{.'l< Radheshyam Sharma Vs. Madan Mohan 1999 (i() M.P. Weekly Note 150, the learned Trial Court has also recorded that the petitioner has not cieariy stated as to how the Corporationis necessary party in the suit. * 5. Submission of iearned counseS for the petitiener that as during the pendency of the suit, the shop has been demoijshed by toe Corporation, petitioner had been paying rent and taxes to the Corporation, (^ause of aetion ftas come to an end and that the petitioner is not liabie for payment of cempensatiort and damages to the piaintiff as the petitioner was in possession arodl not the plaintiff as alieged by the plaintsff, are ali questions to be deterrnined during ttie Tria! of the suit. From the averments made in the petition by the petltioner, jt js ciear that the dispute is as between the petitioner and the respondent with regard to the ownership of the shop. Perusat of petitioner's applicatlon under Order 1 Ruie 10 CPC shows that the case of plaintiff is that the piaintiff purchased the shop in dispute from the Corporation on 02/11/1996. The acfen to impSead Corporation, according to the petitioner, arose on account of demotition of the shop by the Corporation during the pendency of the suit. 1 arn afraid this couSd not be a valid basis seeking impieadment of Corporation as a party in the suit. Though plaintiff has not sought any relief against Corporation, plaintiff being "dominus iitus", could not be compeiled to implead Corporation as a party. 6. In the opinion of thjs Court, leamed Trial Court has neither committed any jurisdictional error nor acted with perversifry in rejecting the application of the petitioner. Consequently, no case for interference by this Court in exercise of ite supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is made out. Petltion is ttierefore summarily dismissed. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge