‘ \ M HEGH CGURT 5F CHHATT$§ARH EELASPUP; Writ Petition i227¥ No.35i 5 0f 201 § Petitioner Sand§p Niyogi, 8io Shfi SK. Niyogi, aged about 39 years, Occupation-Engineer, Rh) Civi! Lines, Raipur (CG) Versus Respondents 1. K.M.$antwani, S/o S‘nri MR $antwani, aged abcut 75 year-s, Dccu.-Manufacturer of Cycie Parts, R/o Jai Jawan Petmi Pump Guiiy, Panchsheei Nagar, Raipur (as) 2. Smt.Tripura Niyogi, Wd/o Late TP. Niyogi, aged about 83 years, Rio Qir.No.9, Jaivihar Cebny, Raipur (QGJ Smt.Savita NSycgi, Wd/c Late S.K.Niyogi, ‘ Rio Qtr.No.9,, Jaivihar Coiony, Raipur (C.G.} 4. Sudip Niyogi, Sic Late S.K. Niyogi, aged about 42 wars, Rio Qtr. No.9. JaMhar i Caiony, Raipur {c.G.) \ gh, Sic. inwabhu n Singh wars, ' 5. SmtAaiiti Poddar W/o Dr.A Poddar Pie Qrr.‘ ‘Nqj-B, S’treet No.22 Sector-1‘0, ‘ Bhnai, Erstrict-Durg (6.8.) Dr. P.K,Niyogi, Sis T.P.Niyogi, R10 Manendragarh, Dis’rrict-Korrya (0G3 6. {Writ Petition under Artécie 227 of the Constitutian of inéia} Present: MrRaghvendra Pradhar}, counsei for the petitiener. Singre Bench: Hon’bie Mr. T.P. Sharma, J §RAL GRDER (23-?-2Q1 0) 1. i have heard reamed counsel for the petitioner and perused the crder dated 24.11.2009 passed by the Fourth \‘3ivii Judge Class-'l, Raipur, in Civit $uit Na.1A!06. 2. Virie order dated 24.1 1 .2609 teamed Fourth Civii Judge Ciase-tt, Raipur has dismissed the appiicetien fer impleading Pramit Niycgi, son of DrPKlNiyogi (defendant N05 therein) on the greund that even after passing of interim \ n , 0 3 injunction in favour sf the petitioner, Pramit Niyogi, son of defendant Nc.5 therein, has vioiated the order of inguncticn and has entered into the hause of ‘zhe petitianer. When the same was contested before the Ceur: beiaw, €hen Dr.P.K.Niyogi {espondent No.6 herein has oppcsed the application and submitted that Pramit Niyogi is his eon, bu: was net party to the preceedinge in which injunction was granted, but subsequently he has apposed the application on the ground that Pramit Niyagi is his son and he is residing with him, therefore, he is not neceesery party fei' adjudication at ihe dispute. in case of impieading any person as a party under Order ‘i Ruie 10 (2) 0f the Cede of Civil Procedure, 1905, party is required to satisfy the Csurt that the persan against whom such application has been hied is necessary party far effective and compiete adjudication and tor settiing the questions invoived in the suit“ Ailegation made against Pramit Niycgi reveais that he has violated the terms of injunction and has entered into the possession of disputed property. His father respondent No.$ has specificaliy opposed the application before the Court beiow and has taken the ground that Pramtt Niyogi is not party, therefore, proceedings for any violation of the order against such person, who is not party, is not maintainable. This fact is sufficient to 'infer that Pramit Niyogi is necessary party for effective and compiete adjudication and to settie the questions inVoived in the suit. While rejecting the appiication filed on behalt of the petitioner, the Court beiow has committed iiiegaiity. At this stage, the Court below was under obiigation to consider the appiication with a View that whether effective and compiete adjudication would be possibie in the absence of such person, but the Court betow has note considered the aforesaid question and thereby committed illegality. For impleading a new person as a party, virtuaiiy other respondents are not having focus standif to oppose such appiication on the ground of deiay in triai of the case. Therefore, no notice to the respondents is necessary. Consequentiy, the petition is aiiowed. Order impugned is hereby set aside. df ,‘lfff SM- T‘P. Shafma Judge Pramit Niyogi be impieaded as a defendant in the suit. No order as to costs. #e “x ,