Smt. Harjinder Kaur v. Arvind Kumar Tiwari
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR W.P.(227) No. 231 of 2018 Smt. Harjinder Kaur, W/o. Gyan Singh, Aged About 50 Years, R/o. Ward No.4, Nagar Panchayat Bodri, Tahsil Bilha, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ............(Defendant No. 6) ---- Petitioners
Versus
1. Arvind Kumar Tiwari, S/o. Mahawar Prasad Tiwari, Aged About 55 Years.
2. Anil Kumar Tiwari, S/o. Mahawar Prasad Tiwari, Aged About 47 Years. Both are R/o. Dabripara, Behind Santosh Bhuwan, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ........(Plaintiffs),
3. Sudhakar Rao, S/o. Late Gajanand Rao Salunke, R/o. Near Mahila Thana, Masanganj, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
4. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
5. Smt. Sushila Salunke, W/o. Late Gajanand Salunke, Aged About 76 Years.
6. Prabhaker Salunke, S/o. Late Gajanand Salunke, Aged About 58 Years.
7. Smt. Sobha Koslay, W/o. Shri Ravikant Koslay, Aged About 45 Years, D/o Late Gajanand Salunke, All above 3 to 7 are R/o. Masanganj, Near Mahila Thana, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
.........(Defendants).
---- Respondents --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioners :
Mr. Somnath Verma, Advocate For State Respondent :
Mrs. Astha Shukla, Panel Lawyer --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 28.03.2018 Heard 1.
The present petition is against the order dated 05.01.2018 rejecting the application under Order 14 Rule 5 of C.P.C. The application was preferred by the defendant No.6, petitioner herein, with a prayer that in the suit, the Tahsildar, the Commissioner Nagar Nigam and the Patwari would be a necessary party. 2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact the land of the petitioner was acquired by the State for road and the plaintiffs
thereby have encroached upon the land of the defendant and in order to identify the property, it would be necessary to frame such issue as in absence of such necessary parties, the suit cannot proceed.
3.
Perused the plaint. The suit was filed for declaration and permanent injunction wherein the dispute is in respect of the land bearing Khasra No.747/1. The plaint further shows that th road has been constructed over the Khasra No.723 and no land is existing that of the defendant No.1. In the plaint, it was further pleaded that the demarcation was also carried out in the year 2004 in respect of the land and subsequent demarcation was carried out on 13.10.2006. The plaintiffs are dominus litis in a suit. Considering the nature of the dispute and the claim made, the order whereby the Court below has dismissed the application to frame the additional issue cannot be stated to be faulty. If the defendant is claiming his right over the property, it can be established during the time of evidence. No illegality can be attributed to the order.
4.
In view of the above, the petition has no merit and accordingly it is dismissed.
Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) Judge Ashok