IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF JuDICATURE AT BILAspun (ca) WRIT PETITION Article 227' No‘ 3'3} b( OF 2011 PETITIONER : / Anil Jain S/o. Shri Anoop Chand Jain Applicant aged abouf 54 Year's. R/o. Near Jain Mandir, T. V. Tower Road Shanker Nagar Raipur, Tahsil and DisTT.- Ripur ( 6.6.) VERSUS g—jaiq a RESPONDENTS :1. Anoop Chand @S/o. Lafe Shri Nemichand PiainTiff Jain, aged abouT 72 year's. R/o. Near Jain Mandir', T. V. Tower Road, Shanker' Nagar Raipur‘, , Tahsil— & DisTT.— Raipur' ( C.G.) Defendanfs / 2. Deepchand KocharS/o. La‘re Shri Rekhchand Kochar, R/o. Shanker Nagar Raipur, Tahsil~ & DisTT.— Raipur ( CG.) 3. Bhikhi bai W/o. LaTe Shri Rekhchand / Kochar, R/o. Shanker Nagar Raipur', Tahsil— & Disi'T: Raipur ( 6.6.) Sunder Bai W/o. LaTe Shri Rekhchand Kochar, ,R /o. Shanker' Nagar Raipur', Tahsii— & DisTT.— Raipur ( CG.) WRIT‘PETITION UNDER ARTI€LES 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUEANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT. ” EM WMWmmMWM‘WmWMyWWWWWu.mwmwwmmww , i O é HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition 3227) No. 374 of 201 1 RS ESPONDENT UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA M " v 1. The instant petition is directed against the order dated 08.09.10, passed by the Ist Civil Judge, Class II, in Civil Suit No. 8-A/10, whereby the petitioner’s application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC was dismissed. Bn'ef facts of the case are that : the plaintiE instituted a suit against the respondent No. 2 to 4 claiming relief of‘ declaration and if p injunction against them on the basis of adverse possession. The petitioner herein submits that he is the title holder of the suit land and without arraying him as a party suit has been dismissed. 3. The trial court, by order impugned, dismissed that application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 on the ground that the plaintiff is entitled to hle separate suit but he is not entitled to be ' \ arrayed as a party in the suit under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC. I have heard the counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the order impugned. i 2 (A It is settled law that decree passed in which the petitioner was not a party is not binding upon him and he is hee to challenge the same ‘ and defend any action which may be filed in pursuance of the above degree. The plaintiE is dominus litis to add any person as a party and in the absence of any cogent reasons, any party cannot be allowed to be added as a party in the'suit filed by the plaintiff against his wishes. The petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or irregularity committed by the court below in passing the above order warranting interference of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is well settled principle of law that this Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of‘the Constitution of India, should renain itself from interfering with the order passed by the Court below, except in such cases where perversity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present case. The petition has no merit and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge