^'..^^^. ^•..-.^v,.^^ ^ ''a.sSa'il j ^is.' %-^/ /&. ^ (Plaintifi) (Defendants) Ranichaiidra Swami (Nagridas) Maiidir Trust a ti-ust duly registered under the relevaiit provisions of the C.G. Public Trust Act, 1956, Purani Bast, Raipur, actiag m ttie premises through S.K. Aganval, Son ofLate Shri K.L. Agarwal, age 65 3-ear Secretarv-/Maaagtn.g Trustee, Rainchaadra Swaiai (Nagridas) Maudir Trust. Kunwar Singh, son of Ramlal Gond, Agriculturist, resident of Vfllage Charoda, Ponce Station T^l-»^s-r'diiyQ i-/ ±J.C3-i.l3-L V CA, Ti=l'h ^^1 i 'iu-AAO^l. T^i^tr"'/^t ^-^A.l.X^.JL^/t- 2. Raipur (CG). Mahaut Shyam. Sundar Das, Saurabh Govind Charan Das, Nagariva Das Maildir, Puraiii Basti,, Raipur (CG) r^-\ 'ble ! Present;- Shri B.P. SIiamia, Advocate for fhe petitioner. Shri A.K. Prasad, Advocate for ftie respondent No. None for the respondent No. 1. (Passedcii 13/09/2011] 1. . By this petition under Article 227 of ffae Constitution of India petitioner bas challenged the legality aad propriety of the order dated 10/2/2011 passed by 4th Civii Judge Class-2, Raipm- (C.G.) in. civil suit No. 61-A/2009 whereby Court below has atlowed apptication for impleadjng present respondent No. 2 in place of deceased Goviod Sharau as defendaiit. 2. Order iiupusned perused. 3. Le'amed counsel for the petitioner and leamed counsel for tlie respondent No. 2 submit fhat plaintijiT has ainended its plaint ia. Para-4 and added Para-4A & 4B in which he has specifically pleaded that if on the basis of written stateinent possession of -2-- 6. agricultural laud has been han.ded over by respondent No. 1 to Govind Sharau. since deceased fhen Govind Sharan is liable to retum/ haud over possession to fhe trust. As per application of present respondent No. 2 Mahaiit Shyam Suxider Das, he is a testainentaty successor of Goviad SIiaran siace deceased and in possession of fhe property of teniple wbich was previously in the possession of fhe Govind Sharaxi. Goviiid SIiaran has haaded over fhe possession of property to respondent No. 2 Mahant Shyam Sundar Das during his lifetuue. Learued counsel for tlie petitioner frankly subiaits that plaiatiff is not ready and wiUiag to implead present respondent No. 2 as party even in case fhat he may be m possession ofthe property. Considering Para-4A aud 4B of the plaint aud application of present respondent No. 2, respondent No. 2 appears a necessar^' party but plaiatiff caunot be coinpeUed to iiuplead hiin as necessaiy party even suit raay be disinissed forwant ofnon-joiuder of necessaiy party. Consequenfly, petition is aUowed. Order unpugned to fhe extent of order relating to iuipleadin.g respondent No. 2 as necessar}7 party is set-aside. No judgment and decree would be possible against respondent No. 2 without impleadia| him as a party. No order as to costs. 7. Interun application stands dfcposed of. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge •^