IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRITPETITION f227) No. 2-^^ OF 2011 PETITIONER: RESPONDENTS ^':va ^^/ ^/M^"' ^y v^y y/y ^,y / ^yy l^ Narayan Sharma, State President, Indian Federation of Working Journalist (As set out in Cayse Title) ^ C-\/^^,^^V^^N^,^(>^LC^ VERSUS 1. Chhattisgarh Shramjiwi Patrakar Sangh through it's General Secretary - Sri Arvjnd Awasthi having registered Office at Phool Chowk, Badhaipara Road, Raipur, Tahsil & District (C.G.) ^ ——( Plaintiff) 2. Sandeep Pauranik, General Secretary, State General Secretary, Indian Federation of Working Journalist -—(DefendantNo.2) 3. Satish Singh, State Vice President, Indian Federation of Working Journalist -—(DefendantNo.3) 4. Pramod Sharma, State Vice President, Indian federation of Working Journalist -—(DefendantNo.4) 5. Vijay Kedia, State Vice President, Indian Federation of Working Journalist -—(DefendantNo.5) 6. Suresh Rawal, State Vice President, Indian Federation of Working Journalist -—(DefendantNo.6) 7. Anil Khare, State Treasurer, Indian | Federation of Working Journalist -—(DefendantNo.7) i! 8. Sanjay Choubey, State Office Secretary, Indian Federation of Working Journalist -—(DefendantNo.8) Address of Defendant Nos. 2 to 8: Plot No.12, Near Aashirwaad Bhawan, Ram Mandir Road, bairon Bazaar, Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur (C.G.) 9. K. Vikram Rao, National President, Indian Federation of Working Journalist -—(DefendantNo.9) 10. Ram Gopal Sharma, National Vice President, Indian Federation of Working Journalist -—(DefendantNo.10) 11. Parmanand Pandey, National General Secretary, Indian Federation of Working Journalist -—(DefendantNo.ll) Address of Defendant Nos. 9 to 11: A-4/199, Union Bhawan, Basant Lane, Near Railway Central Hospital, New Delhi - 110055. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA N HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI8GARH AT BILASFUR Writ Petition C227) No. 2807 of2011 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Narayan Sharma VERSUS Chhattisgarh Shmmjiwi Patrakar Sangh through it's General Secretary & others (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTirUTIONIlFINDIA} (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Agarwal, J.) Present : Shri Bhaskar Pyasi, Advocate for the petitioner. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 15.06.2011) Heard on admission. 1. The instant petition, filed under Article 227 of Constitution oflndia calls in question the legality and propriety of order dated 30.06.2010, passed by VIIth Addl. District Judge, Raipur, in Civil Suit No. 31-A/'2008, whereby and whereunder the respondent's application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) ofCPC for deleting the names ofi-espondentNo. 2 to 11 has been allowed. 2. Brief facts of the case are : plaintiff/respondent No. 1 instituted a suit against the defendants including present petitioner seeking relief of permanent mjunction and damages. During pendency of suit, plaintiff, by filing application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) ofCPC, brought the fact ofout of court settlement entered into between him ''^s^ w and defendant No. 2 to 11, to the notice ofthe court, and prayed for deletion oftheir names from the suit, ,1 The petitioner, by filing his reply, opposed the above prayer on the ground that afiter raising joint cause of action against all the defendants, plaintiff cannot proceed with the suit only against petitioner after deleting names ofother defendants. Trial court, after hearing the parties, allowed the application filed by the plaintiffand permitted to delete names ofdefendant No. 2 to 11. Hence this petition. Shri Pyasi, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit : the trial court has committed grave error in allowing plaintiffs application, inasmuch as, the suit cannot be held maintainable only against thepetitioner after deleting names ofother defendants and suit would become collusive suit. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the order impugned. 7. Plaintiffs prayer was allowed on the basis of his statement that he entered into compromise with defendant No. 2 to 11 and now he does not want to prosecute his case against them, and in that view of the matter, in the considered opinion of this court, pmyer made by the plaintiff was rightly allowed by the trial court, inasmuch as, plaintiff cannot be insisted to continue his claim against defendant No.2toll. ^' .'/' 't 'g 'me&^ uy ^^;^^su c^ ^a^ 8. So far as petitioner is concerned, he is not remediless. The petitioner can raise all the points, including maintamability ofthe suit, in the suit which may be available to him under the provisions oflaw. 9. It is well settled principle of law that this Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitiition of India, should refi-ain 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. Sahu 10. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge