HHATHSGARHAT BILASPU Writ Petitic n {227} N0, 21 7'8 of 2008 PETITIGNER PROPGSED QEFENDANT Shri P.K.C. Tiwari, Advacate fer the petitioner. Heard. Bv this petition under petitioner has impugned the Ramldshan Jain, aged about 52 vears, son of Late Shri Radhakishan Jain, Proprietor Ganpati Medica! Stores, Station Road. Raipur (CG) VERSUS Sanjev Kumar Talwar, son of Shri Shiv Kumar Taiwar‘ Resident of Teiibandha, Raipur‘ Taheii and District Raipur (C.G.) M/s. Deepak Traders, in front of Radha Krishna Mandir, Narmadapara, Raieur, Tahsii and District-Raipur (CG) S.N. Agrawal, Proprietor, M/s. Deepak Traders. In front of Radha Krishna Mandir, Narmadapara, Raipur, Tahsii and District- Raipur (CG) Purushottam Jain, son of Shri Sr. Advocate with Shri Shashi Bhushan, Article 227 of the Constitution of india, the order of Ahnexute P~i-, dated 103.26%, .‘\x \ !GH COURT H OF C R Radhekrishna Jain, through: Ganpati ' Medioai 3tores, Station Road, Raipur (C.G.) IR A L O R D E R 15.64. 2008 RESPONDENTS ‘ 1 . PLNNTIF$ DEFENDANT$ 2. 3. 4. G DHRENDRA M!SHRA. J. WW, 3%)31 $JW mm mm (Wt?) mmm -2 whereby the learned $‘h Additiona! apptication of the petitioner far per: The gfievance of the petitia ftied a Suit egainst MKS. Deepak '"raders & SN. Agrawat as defendants. Subsequently, he moved an apalication for adding the name of ane Purushottam Jain, through Gan i Medical Stores as defendant N03. The appiication was atlowed an the name of Purushcttam Jain was added as defendant No.3 Vide nnexure P-2. Thereaftei', the piaintiff again moved an application tor de etihg the name of the original defendant from the array of the defenda s, which is under consideration. The petitiorier filed an application fort pleadment as defendant on the ground that the address of Purdshottan Jain has wrongly been mentioned as thfough Ganpati Medieal $tores vhereas the said defendant has no co- relation with the above Gan‘pati Aedical Stores and the petitioner is the partner of the above firm. The C urt below rejected the above application with an observation that the petiti ner is not a necessary party as no relief has been claimed against the peti ioner in the suit. 7 After hearing learned cou' sel for the petitioner and after peru’sing the impugned order as also th application preferred by the petitioner before the Court below for impl dment, i am of the considered opinion that there is not illegaiity or infirm ty or jurisdictional error committed by the Court below warranting interfere ce under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia. Sd/— Dhirendra Mishra Judge ‘n m 200 mmwwm $Wané¥r District Judge, Raipur, has rejected the nission to join in the suit as defendant. Her is that the respondent/plaintiff eartier . \¥ 7K \/ ‘ .NV The petition is accordingty ismiesed. Certihed copy as per rules {1, , e ,‘w p t