. . . . ’ r I E H11 H, COUVI‘t OF JUDICATU 1. ’ EAD‘ . 9 YARS ABOUT 4 E 2 SMT K DEVI F 30F, L UGGAD AD 51 RS ca H RESIDETS OF PRAT, ‘ IKWALCHN .‘AGED AMLA WIE / ATE AMARCHAND D GE YEA 5 :B N AP ward, ALPU PPELLAN Defendant Plaintif {f} ‘A’ST[C. 'E‘TTI DER 'SEcT QN 11.51, 0E§0DE OFE g ’ RE N JAGDAR, ,- AT [s] _BAR7G.] A RTTioN: i HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGA ‘i AT BILASPUB { CIVII Revision No. 34 of 2004 Aggellants : Devi Chand &‘Another Defendants Versus_ }Resgondent : Gautam Chand Duggad Plaintiff , ) x Petition under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 g isB- Hon'bie Mr N K Agarwai, J) ent : Shrl BP Sharma With Shri Kshitm Sharma Advocates for ; Shri Ratan Pusty, Advocate for respondent E5 appellants ORAL ORDER (Passed on 5‘" day of January, 2010) With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. Reeling aggrieved by the order dated ”i7.10.2003, passed by the lst divil Judge Class-l, Jagdalpur, in CiVil Suit No. 2A/02, whereby and i wLhereunder the preliminary issue No. 7 has been decided against the a plicants, the instant revision has been preferred by the appliCants/defendants. 'The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/respondent instituted a suit seeking relief of possession and damages against the applicants on the premise that on 09 11 1999 the possessron of suit shop was handed over to him by the tenant and thereafter on 14.11.1999, the defendants encroached upon the suit shop by breaking its lock. Based on the plea taken by the applicants in their written statement, issue has been framed by the trial court which reads as under : i i i “Whether plaintiff's suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party" Pres The trial court heard the issue as preliminary issue and vide its order impugned rejected the plea of the applicants and decided the issue in favour of the plaintiff. Hence this revision. Shri BP Sharma learned counsel appearing for the applicants would submit that plaintiff is not the sole title holder of the property The . ot er co-owners are necessary party to resolve the lis in the instant suit and therefore, the trial court went wrong in deciding the said is against the applicants Per contra Shri Ratan Pusty, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the swt is based on the facts that on 14 11 1999 the defendants illegally dispossessed the plaintiff and took ovelr posses3ion of the swt shop illegally and therefore the suit has been preferred by the plaintiff to oust defendants (applicants) who acdording to him are in illegal possession. He would further submit that the plaintiff’s suit is based onpossessory title not on proprietry title; the plaintiff being dominus-litis, cannot be compelled to add any person as a party in the suit preferred by him. He further contended tha‘ the defendants are free to tile a separate suit but they cannot compel the plaintiff to add any party in the suit and the order passed by the trial court is Just and proper and deserves to be upheld i have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the order impugned. As per para-6 of plaint (Annexure P/2), the cause of action for filing of suit? is; forcible dispossession 'of plaintiff by the defendants on 14.11 .1999 by breaking lock of the suit shop and by encroaching over i i. l l l i i l the suit shop, and therefore, the relevant question would be whether or n%ot the defendants have encroached upon the suit shop without t l i E i i l i i any right or title and it is for the plaintiff to prove the said contention. It Cannot be said that by the said order any prejudice is going to be daused to the defendants. Moreover, the applicants are not debarred from raising title dispute by tiling a separate suit. In the instant suit, if it is found that the defendants have not encroached over the suit shop then certainly the plaintiff's suit would fail, therefore, in the considered dpinion of\this court, the applicants have failed to point out any Jurisdictional error committed by the trial court in passing the said dreter. Accordingly, the revision, being devoid of substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Interim relief granted earlier stands vacated. However, since the l l r‘xi H i rriiatt'er is very old, it is expected that the trial court shall decide the suit éxpeditiously. No order asto costs. r ‘“"" ' Sd/— ' N.K. Agrawal ' Judge