Tudiovture High Court · 2005

RamjanamPrasadJaiswal, Age56yrs S/o. Shri Devnarayan Prasad jaiswal, Smt. Kanti Devi/j W/o. Rainjanam Jaiswal, Aged about45 years, •slltl Mukhdiand Prasad S/o. Shri Ramjanam Jaiswal, Aged about 26 years, ^ AU ab<^ R/o. Bahupara Nagar, Ambikagm, P.S. &Tahsffl Ambilapm, Distt. Sttrguja(G.e.) 4] Dubey £ate Ravindranath Prabhunatti Dubey, Aged aboutj 50 years, R/o. Brarahapara, Aintnkapur, DistrictSurguja(G.G.) S/o. Sint. Mansa Shukla W/o. Shrarain Shukla, Aged about 42 yeais, Kj/6. Mayapi-u-; Ambikapur, Distfc StH'guja (C.G.) • Vija5rnath; Dubey S/o. Shri Shivdjtiari Diibey, Agedabout®years, "''''•••• . •• ':'• • • '.• • ' fl'nathnafii . tDubey, S/o. Dubey, Aged about 63 years, .Shivdhan Kairitiarsh]pHbeyS/o. Shivdhari Dubey, Aged^about 6tiyears, y: ^manuj ©ubeyS/o. Shivdhari ©ujbey, Age3iahoBt57years, iCRespondeats/'deferid^hts) 'Thr g|h:&}13fiGtQT,SuTgu]aj(C.^^ iifi';! ^!" •!xl; WMT PETmONUNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTTTUTION OF INDIA Fll XI-HC-22 '3';5t'iipil<;l<i,^wi'|!U'lis,®ai'yi<. .3TFi^^S^^; 11*WlTgi*ll<*> m.s&^"w 20° ITS>t 31^1^1: R-ii* 311^1 isti^ yf?a aiT^t ^<iraR~S{ 7/4/2005 ^ '^|fe^^>1i'^K *1^^ ^t^^ ^T sriiipt sn^i ShriManoj Paranjpefor th^petifioner, Shn Pankaj ShTiyastava,P.^., for the St&te/respQndent no.IO. Application for urgent hearj hg is allowed.

Heard.- , » Petitioner Maheshwar Kum|ar Singh has filed this writ pefition against in: C.S; JNo.t-A/2003, whereby his ^ CPC forJQining him as a party defendant the order passed*by the {rialv ij-ourt application under Order 1 Rule 1 .•I.. ' *t- has been rejeGted. eounsel.for the petitioner 4ybmits. ihat respondents no.1 to 3 are the. plaintifis. no.4 to 9 aiidjoined .the State/rc 'They filed.i^ suit ior |3erma]aeat injunctiGui.ag^^ |speindent no.lQ'alsoas aparty. The suit ^plainf is Annexure-P/1, which.is;,pending. was filed^on l!9/S/1994,:coEY<:>f ijdents rio,4 to 9 filed the writteia sfatement since HiOTe',thaH,:tElyears. RespGM (Annexure-P72j:l<3eaying, ihe_elsii|a/and:they further filed a .counter. clalm against the plaiiitiffs, wKich ts nc^marked but is filed at page t'7 of! the writ petition. ; '.- "-**.• , . ": . .' . . On perusal.of recpTd^it aj>pears that the appiJGatioa •under^ Order 1 iwasj, fi)ed.|;t3y tHe,petftioHer; as Uate.as,;on Rule 10 CPC; dafed 24^3.17260^! I7/2/2QG5, -wheriithe caqe;,wag^ieet; ioT^evidenee.' TUe.saii^apgBcgilion; was objected to by e>de{endahtS/j;es |sbndeints^ni3.<4Ao Q.veheraeatly.,, Ttie Court below after heanng fhe parties ec|riMdered^l^ m^ It has been noted by^the oourt below fl lat thls deifendants/resRondeHfs ilq;4 to 9 have filed the cbuhter elaim iorjpi court ;below lliat. under the :spi counter claiiii ^ia there, agaiast Sssession.

It faas further beerinotiedsBythe, fcpial faets anci cireuinstaiices •wliSTe:tlae: the 'plamtiffs,, the joinrng of getitionfir •"":-•-^i^—-- .1 SJ^^'^III Ap; ^- ? II 1:IB:! EBI iiiG|iSiii ••' i * 'S^I •^WW'1!, Bflly'ie, (°«'ll<l1< "q^ra? _.W.!;.lih^./rL ra?"v'~^""l'"""-"7"""M WWITgiWqi li^ "^ fet^ <r<i-^(^ sn^i'^1 K;-ii.<ti sn^i '^?T^)'^T?ff an^r ^<nw ^ift^T —2-- +ll4ld4l'l 4w^ ^ slfigtT ail^r Maheshv/ar Kumar Singh as co-4efendant at the stage of evidence is not \ the court below that on petitioner's own ^ierty to various persons in pieces, he has \ied as the defendants. Those persons also !e, the case put up by the petitioner is on some surplus land and this surplus land It has also been noted bil proper, showing that he has sold the proj not applied those persons to be joi^ have not come up. Even otherwi^ the assumption that there may b^ <f may fall in his share. It is hypoth^tic. tered all the aspects.

This Court has also The court below has consic) gone through the material placed the facts and circumstances as thl also filed bv the defendants agd petitioner being hypothetical and] record and not applied to join intermeddle in somebody else ma< Ibefore it and is of the opinion that under by exist in the case where counter claim is the plaintiffs and the case of the purchasers from him are not there on as party and the petitioner wants to [ter and the object is only to protract the proceedings, the petitioner is not| a necessary party for adjudication. The court below has rightly observed \ [hat if the petitioner desires he may file a separate suit praying for the re| |iefs, which he wishes to claim. Even othervyise, so far as the jurisdictij bn of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is concerneifl, that has been amply explained by this if Surua. DevLSai vs.^anichctndeT 8sci Court in its decision in the case d ccnd others reported in 2003 AIR\ SCW 3872 and applying those tests not a case for interference under Article The petition deserves to be , 327 of the Constitution of India. .nd' is accordingly dismissecL- -'v^ ^^ ^^