This judgment dismissed a writ petition under Article 227 challenging the trial court's orders rejecting applications to implead a third party and call for a sale deed. The High Court found no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders.
The writ petition was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.p.(cnNo. Hié /2007.
PETITIONER/ K\j PLAINTIFF
Mahendra ,
S/o Ganesh Sao
aged about- 42 years, Occupation— Agriculturer R/o — Village Chitarpur, P.S.Dhaurpur, Tahsil— Lundra District— Surguja, (M.P.) (NowC.G.)
Present address— Village— Saraiya Post— Chapri, P.S.—
Bhawanathpur, Distt.— Garhwa, Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
VERSUS
RESRONDENTS/ / 1. DEFENDANTS
Butan Ram S/o. LateSorako aged about— 45 years R/o.- Village Chitarpur, P.S.— Dhaurpur, Tahsil— Lundra
Distt.— Surguja (M.P.) (NowC.G.)
The State of Madhya Pradesh,
(NowCHATTISGARH) Through : District Collector, Surguja, (M.P.) (Now C.G.)
WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Pritinker Diwaker
W.P. {cl No.1116 of 2007
PETITIONER Mahendra Plaintiff
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS Defendants
Butan Ram and anétrFer~\
Present:
Shri Rahul Mishra, counsel for the petitioner. None for respondent No.1 though served.
Shri Vaibhav Goverdhan, Panel Lawyer for the Stare/respondent No.2.
0 R D E R (03.10.2013)
In a suit filed by the petitioner/piaintiff for declaration of title and permanentinjunction, two applications were filed by him i.e. one under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. for impleading one Kapil Dev as plaintiffand the other under Order 16 Rule 1 C.P.C. for calling the carbon copy of sale deed dated 20.5.1969 from the office of Sub Registrar, Ambikapur. Vide two separate orders dated 14.3.2006 and 5.1.2007, the said applications were rejected by the trial Court. 02. In all fairness,the petitioner should have filed two separate writ petitionsagainstthe aforesaid two orders, but instead he chose to file only one petition challenging these orders. Be that as it may, from the ‘ord-ers impugned dated 14.3.2006 and 5.1.2007, it is apparent that after considering all the aspects of the case, the impugned orders were passedrejecting the aforesaid applications filed by the petitioner. l find no illegality or perversity in the orders impugned warranting interference by this Court in exercise of powers underArticle 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition is sans merits, the same deserves to 'fw‘mwmy‘w’f be and is hereby dismissed.
'fw‘mwmy‘w’f i ‘ ‘ _ l Sd/— ' l Pritinker Diwakerr‘ 1 Judge
I W ‘*"*5"’%’#T_.TT7iiiiiii
gag—r
2 issues framed by the court
Whether there is legality or perversity in the lower court's orders rejecting applications for impleading a plaintiff and calling for a document copy.
Whether the writ petition under Article 227 deserves interference.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Mahendra
Butan Ram
The State of Madhya Pradesh
Pratikthiker Dwibedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
