IN THE HIGH COURI‘OFCHHATTISGARH :‘BILASPUR Wu't Petition No. 132 of 2005 M/ s‘ Vinar Plastic Industrss Through ‘VShri Proprietor Heman Sewaiam Das Hemahi, Balimm Aged Hemani abo’ut S/o 66: ycars Rio tehbardha VIP Chouk Rawgram P H No 113 Khasara NO 613 Ralpur Tahs11 85 Dlstnct Ralpur (C G) IVemus Bhagwan lhakur Ramohandra J1 Swam1 (L°gal Person‘ Templs Dhdhadhan Math Mathpara Puram Bastl Ralpur (CG) Through Devta K3. Sevayat (Pu3a1'x) or lsgal repmsemauves Nlathadmsn . RaJshree Ramsundéf Das Guru Lats Rajshrce Mahant Vaishnav 'Das Rio. Mathpara, Purani Basti Raipur (C.G’.) Petitioner Respondents WRIT PE’I‘I’I‘ON UNDER ARFILLb 227 UP l‘Hb CONSI‘ITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon’ble Shn Sahsh K. Agnihotri J.) Shn' B.‘ L. Dembhra, Advocate for the petitioner. Shli Sanjeev Knmar Sahu, Advocate for the respondent ‘0 R D E R (Passed on this 16m Day of October, 2008) With the consent ofthe paities the matterds heard finally. The petitioner, by this petition, impugns the order dated 21.9.2004, passed by the'6‘h Civil Judge, Class-I, Raipur i Civil Suit No. 193-A/ 2002, passed on in an application hled. by the respondent/Math under Order 7 Rule 11, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for rejection of the plaint for non—joinder of the necessary parties i.e.‘ Collector and Registrar, Public Trust. 3. The contention of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the Collector as well as the Registrar, Public Trust are not necessary parties as the issue involved 1s With regard to i ‘ . n ._.// thE Math owned and maintained by respondent/defendant— Math, I have examined the documents med herein. The efendantf Math has categorically stated in its application that the land in dispute being Khasra No. 613, area 0.061 hectare, is recorded in the name of the defendant]respondent and the Collector. The land also belongs to a public trust, therefore, it s necessary to implead the Manager’Collector and Registrar, Public Trust, Raipur as necessary parties. Looldng into the dispute involved, it appears that the impleadment of the Manager,Collector and Registrar, Public Trust would facilitate complete and effective adjudication of the dispute pending before the trial Coult. Thus, the Court below has come to‘a just and proper hurling. There is no perversity or irregularity, wairanting interference with the impugned order. It is well—nigh settled that this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of india should rehain itself h‘om interfering with the order passed by the Courts 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. In View 'ot‘ the foregoing and tor the reasons mentioned hereinabove, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. Consequently, M(W)P No. 116/ 2005 also stands dismissed. sw- g \Satish K. Agnihotri} Judge 1 . Trr A ra—w M a 4 @ d i