← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhWP227/395/2017dismissed

Trilok Sharma v. The Collector Raigarh

2017-06-19Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (227) No.395 of 2017 Trilok Sharma S/o Jagdish Sharma Aged About 47 Years Caste Bramhan, Occupation - Transportation, R/o Raigarh Road, Kharsia District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1.

The Collector Raigarh District- Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 2.

The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Kharsia, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh Presiding Officer Devemdra Kumar Verma. 3.

Tahsildar Kharsia, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 4.

Sub-Divisional Officer Public Works Department, Address Behind Electricity Office, Kharsia, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 5.

Sub-Engineer Shri Bhadoriya National Highway No. 49 Old-200, Address Behind Rest House, Public Works Department, Kharsia, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

6.

Anil Gupta S/o Rajendra Gupta R/o Kharsia, Tahsil - Kharsia, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

--- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Manoj K. Jaiswal, Advocate For State :

Mr. Arun Sao, Dy.A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 19/06/2017 (1) By the impugned order dated 28.03.2017, the trial Court has allowed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC filed by the respondent No.6 for impleading him as party defendant in the suit against which this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff.

(2) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the trial Court has committed jurisdictional error in allowing the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC and therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set-aside.

(3) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.

(4) The trial Court has clearly recorded a finding that the proposed applicant was party before the revenue court. The sufficient and valid reasons have been assigned by the trial court in allowing the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC in which I do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order.

(5) Consequently, the writ petition deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge L/-