IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR CIVIL REVISION N0. l0<5 OF 2011 APPLICANTS Defendants NON-APPLICANTS Plaintiffs VERSUS 1. 1. PrabhatPandey, aged about 44 years, S/o Late Banshilal Pandey, 2. Manju Pandey,W/o Prabhat Pandey, aged about 40 years, Both are R/o Village Karhi, Post Sargaon, Tahsil Pathariya, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Kunjram Sharma, aged about 70 years, S/o Chandulal Sharma, Retired Clerk, Irrigation Department, R/o Village Karhi, R.N.M. Sargaon, Tahsil Pathariya, District Bilaspur (C.G.) At Present R/o Yadunandan Nagar, Qr. No. D-273, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Rajenra Prasad Sharma, aged about 72 years, S/o Ramkhilawan Sharma, Retired Traffic Superintendent, State Transport Corporatipn, R/o Village Karhi, R.N.M. Sargaon, Tahsil Pathariya, District Bilaspur (C.G.) At A-..^ ® Present R/oKasturba Nagar, Ward No. 4, Sindhi Colony, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ?•*.. ^u niniT Civil Revsslon No. 105 of 2011 APPUCANTS Defendants Piaintiffs Prabhat Pandey and another Versys Kunjram Sharma and another CSViL REViSOh! UNDER SECT!Gk»115 THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (SB: Hon'bie Mr. N.K. AGarvvai. J.) Present : Mr. P.P. Sahu, counsel forthe appiicant. QRDER (1S.Q9.2011) Heard on sdmissjon. 1. Instant civil revision caiis in questlon the legaiity and propriety of the order dated 6.4.2011 passed by Addltionai District Judge, MungeJi, District Bilaspur in CJvll Sult No. 3-A/2011 Vv'hereby and whereunder the applicants' appiication under Order 7 Ruie 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') has been dismissed by the trial Court. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: Pjaintlffs instituted a sult against the defendants restrainjng them from Jnterfering in thejr possesslon over the suit property. By fliing appjication under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code rejectlon of plaint was sought by the defendants on the ground that the State is necessary' party and, therefore, the sult is liabje to be di'smissed. 3. The appilcation vvas rejected by the trial Court v'ide order Impugned jnter aiia on the ground the sujt has not been fiied cjaiming reiief of declaration of title agalnst the State. 4. ! have h.eard counsel for the applicant and perused the order impugned. 5. The fu!l bench of "vladhya Pradesh High Court In case of SSste of Prad&sh vs. Bsiveer Singh. reported In AiR 2001 2GB has held • As per provlsions contained in Order 1, Rule 3-B of the Code as appllcable for the State of ivladhya 2 ^. Pradesh, the Impleadment of the State in any proceedings effecting the interest of the State In any manner has been made mandatory. 6. Indisputab!y, no relief has been sought by the piaintlff against the State of Chhattisgarh. 7. In vlew of above, since the declsion of sult is not going to affect the interest of the State in any manner, therefore, i do no flnd any iiiegaiity in the order impugned passed by the trial Court vvarrantjng interference of this Court in exerclse of its revi'sionaj jurisdlction. 8. Accordingjy, the clvil revision, belng devoid of merit, is liable to be and Is hereby dismjssed. No order as to costs. - Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge