•- 'n—l m^K -s^- IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.IClNo. 4g3fo ^F 2009. PETITIONER DEFENDANT ^ 6\.^^ ..-•""^2^ ^ Suresh Jain, S/o. Sri Chandra Sen Jain, aged about 61 years, F'roprietor Dhiraj Bangles Stores Ganesh Ram Nagar, Bans Tal Hospital Word, Babu Jag Jeevan RamWard, RaipurfC.G.) VER S U S RESPONDENT P&An&H'-F Girdhar Balwani, S/o. late Shri S. S. Balwani, R/o. Phool Chowk, Nayapara, Raipur (C. G.). - ^ WRIT PETITIONUNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^x^ 0^v Wln ^sf '<fwiv-f, yaly'is, MOiyy :00^~ wwo S.B. Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Adarwal 04.09.2009 Shri DS Jain, Advocate fo Heard on admission. The instant petition is d^ 24.02.2009 (Annexure P/1), Class II, Raipur, in civil suit whereunder the application pr^f Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC was The brief facts of the ca^e and arrears of rent filed by the application (Annexure P/7) for ir|i| Purshottam V. Ratnani and Shj under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC executed in favour of plaintiff bj and the same is under chaliengj persons, which is pending Additional District Judge, RaipLJr, and therefore, they are necessai]y The trial court, holding acquired titie or not on the decided by the court after frami| rected against the order dated p^ssed by the llnd Civil Judge No. 124-A/08, whereby and r^ferred by the petitioner under dishissed. strdn the petitioner. On i^e are that, in a suit for eviction frlalntiff, the petitioner moved an irjipleading Chhaparu Panchayat, inkardas Ji Ratnani as a party the ground that the sale-deed jf Chhaparu Panchayat is illegal j^ in a suit filed by the aforesaid donsideration before the XI Ith r, bearing civil suit No. 3A/05, party for the instant suit. (that whether the plaintiff has igth of such sale-deed will be ii|ig issue and the plaintiff being !iinpfl^«:teii!i"lld<lU"l-!i<;l|i<<—FS/9S—11/2008—L."° .-•s's'g-^.^ --^^ 'Si .^.:.:s^^^^ '& v y s .^' 'S'SET -^wivi^, wniwivS, F®ic)i'<J3T 'tTS?l ^I^I ^TT^ '^FfeRi^ iimf'? fei€?TS^R \t' SahU ^ parfy raited dominus iitis in the matter the s4 a party in the eviction suit, dismis 1 have heard the counsel perused the documents and eviction of the petitioner from th^ have chailenged the saie-deec) necessary nor appropriate Moreover, ali the questions decided by the trial court after fr^ In the considered opinion not committed any illegality or injustice so asto invoke under Article 227 of the Constitul It is weli settled principle of its supervisory jurisdictior) Constitution of India, should order passed by the Court belo( perversity, iilegality, irregularity on the face ofthe record, which i( The petition has no merit dismissed. No order asto costs. sdme redords person cannot be added as ^sed the application. ^ppearing forthe petitioner and Admittedly, the suit is for suit house. Such persons, who in separate suit, are neither at the instance of tenants. by the petitioner would be jming issue in this regard. |of this court, the triai court has |irregularity leading to manifest jurisdiction of this court lion of India. law that this Court, in exercise under Article 227 of the itself from interfenng with the jw, except in such cases where jurisdictional error is writ large ^ not in the present case. and the same is accordingly extraoijdinary cif refrdiin dr Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge Wwen^togCTRSI(!<<-]i<;'IM—FS/95—11/2008—1,00,000.