^»/i- y HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WKIY PETITIOM i227) No. 6S46/2011 ^ PETITIONBR: Proposed Applicant RESPONDENTS/ PLAINTIFFS VERSUS 1. 2. Rahul Deo Shukla, Aged about 35 yeai's, S/o Shii LaUt Shukla, R/o Baynafhpara, Opposite Chhotapara Masjid, Raipur, Tahsil & Distri.et Raipur (CG). Sonraj Golchha, Aged about 52 yeai's, S/o Shri Piikhraj Golchha, Smt. Gunmala Golchha, Aged about 50 years, W/o Sonraj Golchha Bofh the Respondents/ Plaiatiffs No. 1 & 2 are resident of A, Ahinedji Colony Nalgaliar Chowk, Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipiir (CG). Lalit Shukla, Aged aboxit 62 years, S/o Shri Gaiigasagar Shukla, R/ o Baijnaftipara, Opposite Chhotapara Masjid, Raipur, Tah.sil & Distdct Raipur (C.G.i. WRIT PBTITION UNDBR ARTICLB 227 OP THB CONSTITUTION OP INDIA. (SB :Hon?bie Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:- Shri Goutani Bhaduriy Advocate for the petitioner. Respondents not noticed. ORDER DEFENDANT (Passedoa 09/11/2011) By tliis petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India petitioner has challenged the legality and propiiety of the order dated 9/8/2011 passed by 4th CivUJudge Class-2, Raipur (C.G.) m civil suit No. 55A/2010 whereby 4th CivU Judge Class-2, Raipur (C,G.) has dismissed the appUcation tiled under Order 1 Riile 10 of Civil Procedurc Code, 1908 by present petitioDer for itapleadiiig as a party on fhe ground fliat agreement to seU has been executed iii his favour. Origiiial owner of fhe property naoiely Sushila Bai and civU suit filed on behalf of the present petitioner has been disi^iissed saiae has been challenged before tlie High Court ia F,A, No. 100/2007whichispendmg. .^^h, ; '^. N ^iClZ "\ N ^ ^ • '^"fi''"';^^. % ''^Si^ik ^ ¥> ' •• '.. W ^ -y .^ff '^^ '''%^^y ~i^^^ •L 2. Shri Goutam Bhaduri, Advocate for fhe petitioner is heard. 3. Learaed counsel for fhe petitioner submits tJiat for fair decision of tiie case present petitioiier is necessary party and if he is not niade party tiien his right inay be prejudice. 4. Order impugned, copy of the plaint aiid order dated 7/9/2007 passed ia F.A. No. 100/2007 by this Court perused which clearly reveal tiiat present respondente/plaiatifis on present case, origuial seller SushUa Bai and present petitioner are parties and entire facts are withia the knowledge of all fhe parties, in tliese circuEastances virtually, it was proper for respondent No. 1 & 2 plaitititYs ui present case to impleade fhe petitioner as pai'ty but they have not niade tlie petitioner party. Considering the nature of previous litigation pending before the pai-fries by disiaissing appUcation filed on behalf of fhe petitioner Court below has not comisiiitted aay illegality requiring any ititerference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. However, iii the Ught of aforesaid obseivation respondents No. 1 & 2 filed an application for iBipleaduig the petitioner as party then Court shaU decide the sanie witliout tafluencuig by this order or order passed by it, wifh tiliese aforesaid observations petition is dismissed suraiaarily at the stage ofadniission itself. No order as to costs, 5. Intenm appUcatiou stands disposed of. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge ^ l^