SINGLE EEWH N HE HON BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIsGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. 227 NO. (—7 <>\ L /2o11 Raipur—(C.G.) Respondent no.1 Yo 3 R/o Village Kasdal, Tahsi! - KasdoL Disf’r. Raipur-(C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Pefi’rioner/ 2 r. Anand Swaroop Mishra, Aged about 51 Plain’riff years, S/o Shri Bhupendra Nm‘h Mishra, Advocate, R/o Baloda Bazar, Tahsil — Balodo § \ o u \[> \Qiw...............‘ Bazar, Disf’r‘ Raipur-(C.G.) a ‘ 6? V2» Versus ‘ Respondenfs 11/ Nir‘endr‘u Kumar, Aged abouT 60 year‘s, S/o Defendanfs Ramchamn Mishm, r 2. Virendm Kumur‘ Aged abouT 58 year‘s, 5/0 Ramchamn Mishm, 3. Sanm‘ Kumar, Aged abou‘r 55 years, S/o Ramcharan Mishm, 4. $aTish Aged abouf 48 year‘s, S/o Rajnikanf Shrivasfava, Advoca’re, Baloda Bazar' Dis’ri -v;\\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (227) No, 319 of2011 (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF Tmi CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Agarwa], J.) Present : Shri Anil Singh Rajput, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sunil Tripathi, Advocate for respondent No. 1 to 3. Shri Prakash Tiwari, Advocate for respondent No. 4. y; ' ORAL ORDER (Passed on 04.04.201 l) _The instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India calls in question the legality and propriety of order dated 06.12.2010, passed by Civil Judge, Class I, Baloda Bazar, in Civil Suit No. 46-A/09, whereby the application filed by the respondent No. 4 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC was allowed. Brief facts of the case are: plaintiff instituted a suit for malicious prosecution on 10.08.2009. As per plaint averment, respondent No. 4, who is an Advocate, appearing on behalf of other respondents knowing fully well, plaintiff received the amount by order of court of Civil Judge, Class II and not deliberately violated court’s order, only to harass the petitioner had filed contempt petition on behalf of other respondents. PETITIONER : Anand Swaroop Mishra Plaintiff VERSUS RESPONDENTS : Nirendra Kumar & others Defendants &:«‘W/ Respondent No. 4, by filing application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of CPC sought deletion of his name on the ground : he has not flied any proceeding against the plaintih‘ on his own behalf, but he appeared in the proceeding as an Advocate on behalf of other respondents, and therefore, he neither being a necessary nor proper party in the suit filed for recovery of damages, his name requires to be deleted. The trial court vide order impugned allowed the above application. h Hence this petition. I have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the order impunged. The allegations against the respondent No. 4 are indicative of his alleged misconduct for which the plaintiff is free to take action under the provisions of Advocate’s Act, 1965, but his impleadment as defendant in the case is neither necessary nor proper, For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the petition being devoid of substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sahu Sdl- N.K. Agrawal Judge