HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon'ble JusticeShri Satish K. Agnihotri Writ Petifon (C) No. 21 74 of 2007 PeUtioner Plaintiff Jagdeo Singh Thakur, S/o Raghunath Singh Thakur, Aged about 66 years, R/o Dondi Lohara, Distt. Duig (CG). Resoondents Defendante Vereus 1) Smt. Sumler Bai, Wklow of Champalal Jain. 2) Deepchand, S/o Late Champalal Jain. 3) Todannal, S/o Late Champatal Jain. 4) Bhagchand, S/o Late Champalal Jain. 5) Lunkaran, S/o Late Champalal Jain. 6) Santosh, S/o Late Champalal Jain. (All R/o Tahsil Dondi Lohara, Near Nagar Panchayat, Dondi Lohara, Distt. Durg (C.G.). 7) Smt. Dhelabai, W/o Mahavir Sancheti, R/o Shanichari Bazar, Durg, Tahsil aml Distt. Durg 8) Smt. Nirmala Ba\, W/o Narendra Baradiya, R/o Sadar Bazar, Dhamtari, Tahsil Dhamtari, Distt. Raipur (C.G.). 9) State of Chhatti^iarh, Through the Tahsildar, Daundllohara, Disb-ict Durg (C.G.). Present:- Shri P. Diwakar, Sr. Advocate with Shri P.R. Patankar, counsel for the petitioner. .1 ORDER (Passedon 10m April, 2007) By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petiUoner impugns the order dated 23-2-2007 (Annexure-P/11) passed by the Civil Judge Class-1, Balod, District Durg, in civil suit No.20-A/200S whereunder the application filed under Order I Rute 10 <rf ttie Gode of Civil Procedure (for short "the Code") was rejected. 2) The indisputabte facts in nutshell are that the peUBoner has filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code to imptead the tegal heirs/representaUves of the original seller Shreeram on the ground that they are the necessary partles. The Civil Judge Class-1 vide order dated 23-2-2007, after having hearet leamed counsel appearing for the ptaintiff and defendants, observed that in the original suit for declaration of ownerehip, permanent injunction and possession no relief was soughtfor against Shreeram and his legal helrs/representattves. The suft was filed in the year 1991. For more than 15 years no attsmpt was made to bring tegal heirs/representatives on record. Since no relief has been claimed against Shreeram and his legal heirs/representatives, the impleadment of the tegal heirs/representaUves in the suit is not necessary at this stage, as they are not the necessary parties. Thus, in exercise of his power under provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Code, the applicEdion was rejected with cost of Rs.100/-. 3) I have heard leamed counsel for the petittoner and carefully gone through the pleadings, impugned order and other documents appended thereto. 4) It is well settled pririciple of law Uiat under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court has jurisdiction of judicial review of the order passed by the Court below, in Ifte event, there is manifest and apparent error on the fact of the proceedings based on Uie clear Gowri ignorance or utter disregard to the provisions of law of ttiere is grave failure ofjustice or grave injustice has occasloned thereby. Further, this Court can also entertain the petiUon in te supervisory jurisdiction if there is perversity, irregularity or illegalHy in the process ofdecision, not in the decision itself. 5) Applying the above settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, it does not warrant interference with the order passed by the Court below. 6) As a result and in view of the foregoing, the pstitton deserves to be dismissed and isaccordinglydismissed. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge