1. Dr. Harshwardhan Tiwari S/o Late Shri Ramgopal Tiwari Aged About 81 Years R/o v. 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raipur, Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:23485 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 325 of 2025 1. Dr. Harshwardhan Tiwari S/o Late Shri Ramgopal Tiwari Aged About 81 Years R/o Gyan Parisar, Near Pandit Ravishankar Shukla University Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Plaintiff) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
Legal Reasoning
(Defendants) 2. Pandit Ravishankar Shukla University Raipur, Through Registrar, Pandit Ravishankar Shukla University Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. S.C. Verma, Sr. Advocate alongwith Mr. Abhishek Pandey and Mr. Aditya Agrawal, Advocate For State : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 12.06.2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Section 227 of Constitution of India against the order dated 27.01.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by the learned Fourth Additional Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in Case No. 36/2019 by which the application for MANISH YADAV Digitally signed by MANISH YADAV Date: 2025.07.16 12:08:36 +0530 2 review the order passed Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC has been rejected. 2. Brief facts as reflected from the record are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit before the learned trial Court seeking relief against the obstruction and claiming a right to continue use the road against the respondent No. 2 Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University which was registered as Civil Suit No. 32-A/2013. The civil suit has been dismissed by the learned Third Civil Judge Class-I, District - Raipur (C.G.) on 12.03.2019 by recording its finding that according to the plaintiff itself, the plaintiff is utilizing the disputed way from the year 1981 whereas suit has been filed on 22.07.2008 and it has not been used for 30 years, therefore, no Easementary right can be granted to the plaintiff. Being aggrieved with this order, the plaintiff has preferred an appeal before the learned Fourth Additional Judge, Raipur who vide its order dated 16.05.2019 while exercising its power as per Order 41 Rule 25 of CPC has remanded the matter after framing additional issues, which read as under: “1- D;k ia-jfo’akdj 'kqDy fo’o fo|ky; jk;iqj] ^jkT;^¼N-x-'kklu½ dh Js.kh esa vkus okyh laLFkk gS\ 2- D;k N-x- 'kklu bl okn esa vko’;d i{kdkj gS\ ;fn gka rks mlds vla;kstu dk izHkko\” 3. Thereafter, the learned trial Court after appreciating the material on record has given its finding with regard to issue No. 1 on 15.03.2021 that University is a State and while deciding the issue whether State of Chhattisgarh is necessary party and what will be 3 its effect due to non-joinder. The learned trial Court has decided the issue No. 2 that Chhattisgarh Government is a necessary party still it has not made party to the suit, as such, on account of non- joinder of necessary party the suit is not maintainable. Thereafter, the appeal again come up for hearing before the learned Fourth Additional District Judge. The petitioner moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC for impleading the State of Chhattisgarh as party to the case. The learned Fourth Additional District Judge vide its order dated 27.01.2025 has dismissed the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC. Being aggrieved with this order, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the learned trial Court has committed illegality in not granting him an opportunity to implead the State of Chhattisgarh as party in civil suit as no objection in this regard has taken before the trial Court by the respondent and when the matter was remitted back by the learned appellate Court with its specific direction under Order 41 Rule 25 of CPC then only the issues have been framed, as such, no opportunity was available for the petitioner to lead evidence or to move an application for impleading the State of Chhattisgarh as party to the case. Thus, he would submit that without giving any opportunity of right to defend on this issue his right has been curtailed, therefore, he would pray for allowing the application and consider the same. 5. Per contra, Mr. Neeraj Choubey, learned counsel for the 4 respondent University and Mr. Ajay Kumrani, learned Panel Lawyer opposing the submission would submit that the petitioner has opportunity to challenge the finding recorded by the trial Court in pursuance of the order passed under Order 41 Rule 25 of CPC while the matter remitted back by the appellate Court, as the appeal is still pending consideration before the appellate Court. He would further submit that the application to implead the State of Chhattisgarh as party to the case is allowed it will prolong of the litigation as the matter is pending since 2018. Learned counsel for the respondent University would submit that even University itself is State within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, therefore, the State is not necessary party. Thus, he would pray for
Decision
dismissal of the writ petition. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ petition. 7. Considering the submissions made by the parties, it is quite vivid that the University itself is State within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and from the pleadings made by the petitioner and respondents, it is quite vivid that the land has been allotted by the State to the University, therefore, if any right of the University is violated they are very much there to protect their interest, therefore, considering this aspect of the matter, the petitioner is at liberty to raise all the grounds with regard to finding recorded by the trial Court on 15.03.2021 by which additional issues No. 1 and 2 have been decided by the learned trial Court and in the eventuality of raising this plea by the petitioner, the appellate Court 5 shall decide the same in accordance with law without being influenced from any of the observations made by this Court. 8. With aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Manish