•!S«' BEFORE HON'BLE HIGH CQURT OF CMHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION ^fNo.^3^ /2009 PETITIONER Plaintiff (^S^) ^ ' -^ . /.: Bhikj Bal, W/o Sampatlal, agedabout 6Q years, R/o T.V. Tower Road, Near Jain Temple, Shankarnagar Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. Defendants ^ ^.^^'^w ^y^ s>''^" ./^ 2) ww ^^ Proposed Defendants 3) ^ !.»fl M/s.~Kemin Private Limited Company, Through: Managing Director ShriAnupchand Jain, S/o Late Shri Nemichand, R/o T.V. Tower Road, Near Jain Temple, Shankarnagar Raipur (C.G.) StateofChhattisgarh, . Through: the Collector, .Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Premchahd Chopra, S/o LateShri Deepchand Chopra, Sadar Bazar, Rajnandgaon(C.G.) Smt. Gyariubai Chopra, W/o Late Vimalchand Chopra, Aged about |G8 Years, ThrQugti Ppwer of Attomey holder- Ajay Chopda S/o Vimalchand Chopra, R/o Ward N6.J31 Sadar Bazar, Near Basanpur Kotwali, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) WRITPETITION UNDERARTICLE227QFTHECONSTITUTI@)]N )FINDIA. StK HIGHCOUICT OF GHIWTnS©MWATBIU PUR^^k Sinate Bench: HonWe ShriJusace PrashanUtumwidfehra Wnt PeBUon <227tN0^888^ M08 PETmONER PLAINTIFF RESPONDEMTS DEFENDANTS Vereus BWId Ban Mfe. Chonin Piwate Umtte*a<awnpany and'<Ahers.',,,°"':' °''''::'':1':°"" ^Wfr^3^^^'*^ ^iri Amip Majuiwter, cwmsel for the petittort^ ^ IV8ssjSange^.hmshFa,.-Ey-.^^.^ate^RCTi|6r^^g,|2.,,3|j ShriMiu^(^uranjpe,«)ui^for1h»respondei<sN».^S*^^ h WRIT PETmON UNDERAKIICLEZHrOFTHECONSTinCTKmOR INNA ORALORDER (is^Q.aiM) ^ff'^ ^z ^fe s»-•sssK^^-ii&iy^ WalCouiteon» ChaUenge in this peMUqn B to th& oidar 06-04-2009 aUowmg a^icsfionflted toy Ihe under Order 1 Rute 10 of fte C.PX;. for their imRlwKlmentasdefento'rtlm thesutt. N®;t3i&i«lwi "afi-siisiwawss (2) The JRtedfce;present suttfor declaratiwctfUlei '^^••s: and for ftnttier declauratton ttialthe saledeed dtri. 22-09-1983 exficuted'ta^^^^ >. 1 is:in-elfecBveand:deserw^atfft8?"'B;,,, -i."i'i8]>i<nifaS-!>!ti!d::BSII cancelted. Duringthe pendency of the suit, the respondente No.*3"&4a|(,^, preferred an applicatkm uncter Onter ) Rs^ W tiftCPG. fw^lh^M.^ ^^t^:.^:^^:.^! impteadmentas d^n^inte on the ground that jBw plainUff and defendantN»ha ^ • • !1 " No. 1 are ctose retetives, and'the ^ istx^us^ andC the suit^(xoceed^^^^^ sw ^F^I^ without nnpteadiigftemttmrurtM^shaUbead^^ to them Vney have interest hi the property and ttie feand as sudi||Bj(»h ^-.. . .- .. " ' 11 li be joined us defendante. ift;Bi«!fr-ilffi^ (3) The plainUff opposed the prayer tor impteadmwit aid stated Ihattthetij,^ saud Vimal Chand Chopra was a maresharehoMter and <teatti'0ft«».te shareholder does not mato any change in th®ConsBtuUon of the Cempany*»a,,,,^ ''Wf Acconfing to fhe ptewnBffthe Conyany is a cogwrate body aml^weoB^ia^Wt^ . ,.:i..,..»...,.,.,,..,,..»-,,,'.: -. ..':,,>, j^,.;;vi'y.,i.;,:.p-r,,,yi^ diaBdefend the suft and th®implrodment to the respondenlsl'tei! ilia-®' ":N^' proposed defendarts are not needed in the suft and'ttiey areineWier"»,», ',-»,:.•i)tR«^.!»»;-?'««aa .'"I' necessary nor properparty. , ( • (4) The trial Court alk>wed,»w appUcatton w4rich hasicompelM :»;! .,..•>•---5::!-.. ..,V:--:.,^::,y,i1. ^i-'.;,S':':.:^S!''^':iES!'^*ifiM'n'»'»»''";«Si;l"Bsi "'"I'l plairtUf to prefer the inatart^ p^aion. The peUtfo^ ha8»»eitoral^ :»i submission made by her in th®toial Court as is^reltectBd m her r^>tytaitte«li,i,s appUcalion under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C. •^ (5) On the other hand, toamedcounsel for tt&re^Bondents stAnrits^hat the impugned order has been paaed t^ t>» iMmeditrtal Court afte the nature pf fe pencBng btfore it and ths uNin»to'hnfact<ofth» St1 decres whfch may ba passed^cn the gaties »we a»l|is<a] who want to be impteaded. Acconiing to the trial Court<he»presenc^®flhe ^^" ^3&4a Mcaassw1wcomf^atew^vttwXe w^«S^SaQR» -••*.-i--.--i-vv'-:h.-iy-*^,,^^^^ ""i» <rf the disputo pending beforo the Court, thewfore, they'«d8swives^«*eii« imptoaded as ctefendante. Counsel^ the rwpondeite <^ad^^01()^i<i'.e ^•:.;,:^ .•.::,ll''"&i!l-:-an-'.»'-.^lt'-A^ SCC 217 CeUna Coelho Pereira (M») and <MhenwWlN«|ytoM|a|,., Mahabateshwar Kholkar aid othere and SSOO» AIR SCW 4006 Radhess,,, ShjRwn & Another Vs. Chhabi Nirth & OtheB8<o4>uttBess hfe's that no interference is calted for in the fyreert peWon. 'lfla-l (^ Having hroid leamed couit^ for tw parties, ftfeiCouft^Jsio^^ opinton that the exBicise of jurisdic^an<tdfeCTetion Iwlh®tNi^rtm allowingthe application underOrder 1 Ruto 10 olC.P.C. ctoes rwtsuffet^rom •:ai-:l!<|ilr:..liM.-i,s>^]- any palpabte or manBest Irreflulantyor ategality. When apprdiensKmAas been raised by the rwpondente No. 3 & 4^^ submiwkm|hat^^gAB^^^^^^^^^ ;3'I.Q-;i»<»l.s»ii,.t, ~s- collu^w and they arethe tegal heiis offt»<»»o( the Managing Director and their inlerest may be adversety atfected and in this viay of the matter and mwe particuterty in viewofthe obseivaltkwi made by the trial Court that the deferKtant-Company has already filed the written statement admitBng the enUre (teint ofthe plalntiff, B appears Uiat the trial Court has rightly^alkmed' fce appBcation under Order 1 Ruto 10 oTC.P.C. (7) In the matter of Celina Coelho Pereira (Ms) (supra) the Supreme Court has reiterated the scope of jnterfarence in a p^iCwi under Artfete 227 of the ConstituBon <rf India whteh is extracted herein under- "30. In Battfutmal Raichand Osws^ v. Laxrraaba/ R. Taita, ^97^ ^ SCC 858 ^Co^/»e^<5CCp.865; para^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ "7. ...The Hyh Couit cannptmguise ofexerereff^Mte » jurisdicSon undw AiWe 227 cmwert itseVinfoa"eotitti'*% af appeal when the fegislahvs has nat confsfred ay^ ri^it of appeal aml made the deciston of fte %, subonSnate couit or Wbunal ffiial on facts." 31. h State v. Navftst Santttiu, (2003) 6 SCC 641 ^2003 ^ SCC (Cn) 1546thsCourte}(iriamedffiepw^<rf^^^^ Court uncferArttote 227 tftus: (SCC jop. 656-57, para 2^ »^"s*a! "28. Thus the law s ttfat AiSc^ 227 of«Wb ConsfftuSon oftmSayvestheHigh Cow^ftepoww^ over aff courts and tnbBftals f ^ :..!)i.CS,,;;KW»WJi(8i ^iroug/hoat the terotoros A? fslatton fo wtwh^ ^ exerefees JuBSoicftw. Ths jwiwffcSon camotvtw^^ ZffnSed w fettwed by anyAct ofthe Sfete Leg^aAwe. 3,„, The supemswy JurisdftrfHM? exteftds to *e^ow%B(fte" 3,^ suboivSnate (rabunafe w sfi (he J&nfls of<feetFau(ftGffl^|.y '"i ^ and to sewng ttiat (hey ofeey ffie tew. ;Theggowe « underArlicle 227 aie wmte and canbe use^ytow&efc the ends ofjustee. They cao 6e usetf to m^wifere- ewn wSft an mteriocutoiy o«fer However ttw power untter AiSde 227 is a discrseoRafy power andWsf cSfficult to aftribute to an orater of fhe Hyh Court,'awtT ^s^. yw! ^~t a souroe afpawer, when the Hi^i Courtjts^ctoes»m^ m terois putport to exeiase any sucft dfeCTBdimay *Saa H s^'^ %%.^;., power. it s setflecf (aw Vve^ (ft*s pqwer ^ supeiMsndence,tiMlerAfttcle 227, musfAeiexaflEa|kd ^jwsngfy ancf onty (o Aeep wbwvhiate cowis afftf (rabunafe wftfun (fteAoumfe <rf thew auMwty amlmatto- •^!^:^i::^'^yfWK^ conwst mere errois. Fufttw, wfte/ftAe stetofe i»w»s; the exe/dse of revlawial pawersMwwM^re^wBve^ excep6waS cfrcumstences fo wamwrt mterfw^eNg uncterAficfe 227 o/flie Consffiutfon oftooSssinceOreK*,,,, power of superintencfence was not ine®rf»!8-te»»|E iia-ll.i.i.iijtelBKlg dmimwnt statutwy law. K isi::se s<S jaw^iffiai^»sv^ /tmsdfcfon under Ai de 227 coulcl not 6e exewfe®d»%,, 'as the ctoakof an awealw cSsgusw'." 32. TTw aforesafd two (fectefBns and few offw (terasfen^'m.,,, namely, ChaiKlavaikar Sta Watna ^aa v. <^»a(atef'S$si»sg| ^•^s :ili^^:.is||!;|.l^sa::.^;-' ,l:!?l| Guram, (19W) 4 SCC 447, Stete QfMaharas^v.ABfro^ ., ,.---/ • -- - ^^. .^, -.-^.^-.^.....———^^.ggg^^ (2001) 1 SCC4:2001SOCft.^117andRw!Jwt^ghfi9 RawPraks^i, (2004)3SCC682caimtof 'cwa^fWty this Court m Shamsftad Ahmaolv. Tiitek /^^^ (^^i«9»!iiil •^ "' f..!;ia(,d(gfiii»,asP'W> SCC 1 and (h»sCourtAefefc (TBa(</?^case,j(200i^5^(^"^iBV, K,n ^^ SCCpp. 10-11, para38) : ! : :• -: . -:) >.^»"»» "38. Though powws ot a Hig/h Cwrt uncter Atretes 226 and 227 are vwy wkte ancf extei ft»8 oiw afft courts and tribunals ttroughouf ff»e te/ritones fe retetron to wft^ffexenases^urisGltrf^s^^powefis mustbe exenasedwtWn ^ flfl^ (rffcv^ ?7Vw;poaiterf fe siyefvfeor^to^ft^ure.^TheH^CkMirt^sfE^^ as a courf ofajiyei^w;a;cotrt<rf«n^^fft^^ine^e^ rewew nw mafyvwd^ wv iw^h ^ ew^ncet-Mj^ upon wftfcft ctetemaina^ o/a.s^cOTi&^ c<^t^^ infertor Wwnaliwrp^^ to.be^bgs^^w^i^ errore affsKtt oreven oftowandtosubsBhrie i siciw #*^ -^ ~'"~ " 7'"'.~7^ ";y—-" ;~^-" 7 _",1.;3 \ decision f(vffH^ofihe mfenofcourtoKirtlMm^^fffME^ \ pcwws are^Feffi^^^be^exwssecL/n^^j^ii^ and onty m aipiprepriafe cases m otdw io lw^> ttie sutawdnate courts and mferiar ttttwsals wffim» h SmSsoflaw." . ^ —:.!?^;';:"»^:-:.- 33. In the Ight of the ataresald 1^1 posSUon conoenwig« jurisdtetton of the h(i^i Court under Arttete 227, wWchacthe Hgh Court failed.to |teq»in mind, tt must be hdd thaitinithe; facts and cireumstences of the case and the recorded by the AdttWmial Rent ControBer as wellfasslhe Admliwstrative TrB)unal,the High Court was not justiled jn irterefenng wilh the concwrentorders pf eviction based on the ground of sub-tetting in exercise pf ite power under Arttote 227 ofthe Constihrtion of Inda." s i.,.^ ^•s?N (8) hn the matter <rf.SutKN!^IKtjmar^6ll^^aiW|ott^ Gupta and others reported,m^;^8::11^SC^STB,.^M^^ Cou»t,white deaftng wUh a MmUar case relathg to exe»use<offl^^uHsdctioin "•( under Onter 1 Rute 10 of CP.C. and scqa®ofintwferwtce inESuch-matters under Arttete 227 ofthe ConstihiBon of India has hekt thus :- "3. Havlng heard the leamed counsel for thety^ parties, we ar?sat|rfiedtl^the wder passed^l^the iy High Court cannot be stRtained. The tnal (^)urt NNd1* sg; exeroised its discrdion and assigi^ reasons te ^ permitting impteadmertt. In exeroise <rf Jln^edwy,, jurisdtetion conferred by Articte 227, the High Cpurt a, shouM not have mtertered with the discretion ^ exereised by the trial court. Even otheiwis^^ h^ heard the leamed counsel fw the partjes, wre aiesNig satisfied that the impteadment ^ wfe,dayghj^rsag<t^^ HUF of Subodh Kumar Gupta is.ju^fled m Itefec^f ^ and in Vhe cireumstances of the case." . (9) In vtew of the above extracted pronouncement by fce Apex'Court '^1^^ :^:^ ai^^^i^;t '^ iths Court is of ihe opinion that the present is not one of swhff*w8«-ca8e<»8E ..—i ^.^sv%. ^y^ -^ ^ 1\^^/- Kw^- 6 iscaltedfor. jThe where interfenwtce wtth ttw oider passed bythe petlUon imder Artiete 227 cS ihe ConsUuUon of hulia taite and is.hereby^^^^^ .l:::': ..:::.'';:::-:^!^i:fa:i&^s®^^^^^^g| ""^ dfemissed. . - - ;———^^ u.B^iaEEisaiassa.3*'" Sd//- . Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge ^