HIGH COURT OF CHI-IATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (227! N0. 553 of2009 PETITIONER PLAINTIFF Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.GI) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. Smt. Shabnam Bano W/o Late Samsul Haque; EFENDANTS 2. Salim @ Rafique, s/o Late Sainsul Haque; Both are R/o Ashwani Nagar, Mahadev Ghat Road, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Sardar Mangal Singh, aged about 71 years, S/o Late Shri Karam Singh, R/o Azad Chowk, SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri, Advocate for the petitioner. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 30t day of January, 2009) 1. The petitioner/plaintiff has filed this petition challenging the order dated 22102008 (Annexure P/S) passed by the 13th Civil Judge, Class II, Raipur, in Civil Suit No. 19—A/2008. The facts, in nutshell are that the petitioner has filed a civil suit being No. 19-A/2008 in the Court 0f 13m Civil Judge, Class II, Raipur seeking possession of the suit property, stating that the respondents have illegally occupied the suit land During the pendency of the suit, the respondents/med*annapplication under order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the CPC’) stating that Kamal Kasar, who has also filed a suit in the Court of 4m Civil Judge, Class I, against the respondents/defendants for the same suit property, is a necessary party. Therefore, that Kam‘al Kasar be impleaded as necessary party in the suit. The application was allowed by the Trial Court on 22.10.2008 (Annexure P/S). Being aggrieved, the petitioner has tiled this petition. \ \ \, w D 3‘ I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitoiner, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 4. Learned Court below has examined the documents produced by the respondents/defendants, wherein it was found that Kamal Kasar has filed a suit against the respondents/defendants in regard to the same property for which the present petitioner has flled the suit. The petitioner has merely stated that he is owner of the suit property on which the respondents/defendants are in illegal possession. Kamal Kasar is not owner of the suit property, thus, he has no vested interest and right over the suit property. 5. Having considered the facts situation of the case, this Court is of the opinion that learned court below has not committed any illegality or irregularity in directing for impleadment of Kamal Kasar as party to the suit, because for the same suit land, Kamal Kasar has also filed another suit against the respondents/defendants. ' 6. In the matter of Udit Naraz'n Singh Malapaharia v. Additional Member Board ofRevenua, Bihar and another}, the Supreme Court observed as under: “(7) To answer the question raised it would be convenient at the outset to ascertain who are necessary or proper pa ies inipyroceeding. The law on the subject is well settled; it is enough if we state the principle. A necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively; a proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceeding. (l2) To summaries in a writ of certiorari not only the Tribunal or authority whose order is sought to be quashed but also parties in whose favour the said order is issued are necessary parties. But it is in the discretion to the Court to add or implead proper parties for completely settling all the questions that may be involved in the controversy either suo motu or on the application of a \\\ 1A1R 1963 sc 786 .\¥ party to the Writ 0r an application filed at the instance of such party.” 7. It is well—nigh established that this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of Indiashould refrain itself from interfering with the order passed by the Courts below, except in such cases Where perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present case. The court below has rightly come t0 the conclusion that Kamal Kasar be impleaded as party to the suit. Thus, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 22.10.2008 (Annexure W5). In View of the foregoing. this petition is dismissed in limine. No order asto costs. r \l Sd/— I t l Satish K. Agnihgrri . U Judge