IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHI-IATTISGARH BILASPUR (C.G_.) magma. §9 2f (2007 PmmomR/ Smt. Alka smgh W/o Shri Progosed Defendant Vijay Singh, aged about 41 years,D/0Late Shri Rajendra Kumar Singh, R/o Jaipur (Rajesthan) Through Power of Attorney holder Shri Rakesh Kumar Singh S/o Late ' Shri Rajendra Kumar Singh , R/o Akaltara , Tahsil Janjgir, Distt. Janjgir Champa (C.G.) Akaltara Education Trust Akaltara Through President — Dhirendra Kumar Singh, - ..~- ‘ Shantikunj,ln &ont of Mama ..... :L.‘ ' Bhanja Talab, Bilaspur & v " Secretary, Ishwar Prasad Khandeliya, Baloda Road, Akaltara, Distt. Bilaspur r (now Janjgk—ChampaxQG.) Vivekanand Bal Shiksha Samiti Akaltara Through President — Vivekanand Ba] Shiksha Samiti, Akaltara. Distt. Bilaspur (now Janjgir- Ohampa) (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE ' CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. M sum? “ FEE ‘ ‘l\IBH “ : . }\ has already been decided on 26-9-2001 vide Annexure P—5‘ therefore, the same cannot be considered again. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that when the issue was decided earlier vide Annexure P-5, the petitioner was not a party in the suit, therefore, the said finding would not be appiicable or operative against the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has supported the ,1\\‘ argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. The suit filed by respondent No.1 is based on relationship of licensor and licensee between the plaintiff and the defendant. The present petitioner Smt. Alka Singh, who intends to get herself impleaded in the suit, is claiming title on the suit property and is asserting that respondent No.2/defendant is, in fact, her licensee and not the licensee of respondent No.1/plaintiff. 8. In the opinion of this Court, the trial Court, on the earlier occasion, while deciding the issue regarding non-joinder of necessary party and as well as by the impugned order, has rightly held that the petitioner is not a necessary party in the suit. If the petitioner’s plea for impieadment is accepted, then a suit between licensor and licensee would be converted into a dispute of title ,.- between the plaintiff and the petitioner. ‘29. l l Kumar Gupta and others vs. Alpana Gupta and others, (2005) 11 ‘« ISCC 578, has held that in matters regarding impieadment of parties Even otherwise, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Subodh W , Sd//- K Judge Prasham umar Mishm