Disposed¶23

Ful Bai Rathore, v. Laxmi Prasad Rathore

Chhattisgarh HC10 Aug 2025WP227/11/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Impleadment of purchasers of suit property alienated pendente lite — Chhattisgarh HC (2025:CGHC:41086) holds trial Court ought to have allowed plaintiff's Order 1 Rule 10 CPC application in Civil Suit 15A/2019 (Kharsia); rejection order dated 30.09.2022 set aside, amendment permitted, petition disposed, interim order of 10.01.2023 vacated (WP(227) No. 11 of 2023, J. Rakesh Mohan Pandey, 11.08.2025).

What did the court decide?

Order dated 30.09.2022 set aside; application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC allowed; learned trial Court to permit the petitioner/plaintiff to carry out necessary amendment; interim order granted on 10.01.2023 vacated. ¶23

Ful Bai Rathore, Vs Laxmi Prasad Rathore — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned trial Court rightly rejected the petitioner/plaintiff's application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC to implead the four purchasers to whom defendant No.1 had alienated part of the suit property during the pendency of the civil suit.

¶15

Court's answer

Since the suit property was alienated by defendant No.1 in favour of 04 persons during the pendency of the civil suit and an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC was moved by the plaintiff himself, the learned trial Court ought to have allowed the said application.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

On the facts discussed, the trial Court's order dated 30.09.2022 rejecting the Order 1 Rule 10 application is set aside; the application under Order 1 Rule 10 is allowed and the learned trial Court shall permit the petitioner/plaintiff to carry out necessary amendment.

¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

WP(227) No. 11 of 2023 (High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur; neutral citation 2025:CGHC:41086; J. Rakesh Mohan Pandey, 11.08.2025) — Plaintiff Ful Bai Rathore sued defendant No.1 Laxmi Prasad Rathore in Civil Suit No. 15A/2019 for declaration of title, confirmation of possession, partition and permanent injunction over the Schedule-A property. During the suit's pendency, defendant No.1 alienated part of the suit property to four persons by registered sale deed; the plaintiff's application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to implead those purchasers was rejected by the First Civil Judge, Class-II, Kharsia on 30.09.2022. Held: as the suit property stood alienated during pendency and the impleadment application was moved by the plaintiff herself, the trial Court ought to have allowed it; the order dated 30.09.2022 was set aside, the application was allowed, and the trial Court was directed to permit necessary amendment. The writ petition was disposed of and the interim order dated 10.01.2023 was vacated.

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.08.14 19:59:36 +0530

¶3

2025:CGHC:41086

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WP(227) No. 11 of 2023

¶7

*** -** Ful Bai Rathore, D/o Late Khubi Ram Rathore Aged About 70 Years Resident Of Village - Purani Basti Kharsia, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. (Plaintiff)

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

Versus

¶10

1 - Laxmi Prasad Rathore, S/o Late Khubiram Rathore Aged About 68 Years Resident Of Village - Purani Basti, Kharsia, District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh. (Defendant)

¶11

2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Collector, Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. (Defendant)

¶12

		... Respondents
For Petitioner	:	Mr. R.S. Patel, Advocate
For Respondent No. 1	:	Mr. Govind Dewangan, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Shivendra Bhardwaj, Advocate
For Respondent No. 2	:	Mr. Shubham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer

¶13

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶14

11/08/2025

¶15

The petitioner/plaintiff has filed this petition assailing the order passed by the learned I^st Civil Judge, Class-II, Kharsia, District Raigarh (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 15A/2019 dated 30.09.2022 whereby an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC moved by the petitioner/plaintiff was rejected.

¶16

Mr. R.S. Patel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff would submit that the suit was filed by the plaintiff for declaration of

¶17

¶18

title, confirmation of possession, partition and permanent injunction pertaining to the suit property mentioned in Schedule-A. He would contend that during pendency of the civil suit, defendant No.1 alienated the part of suit property to 04 persons through registered sale deed. He would contend that the petitioner moved an application to implead those purchasers as party defendants and said application has been rejected by the learned trial Court. He would further submit that the plaintiff being dominus litis may moved an application to implead necessary party. He would further contend that as the property was alienated in favour of the proposed defendants, the the learned trial Court ought to have allowed the application.

¶19

On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the respective respondents would oppose.

¶20

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents.

¶21

Considering the facts that during pendency of the civil suit, suit property was alienated by defendant No.1 in favour of 04 persons and therefore an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC was moved by the plaintiff himself, the learned trial Court ought to have allowed the said application.

¶22

Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, the order dated 30.09.2022 is hereby set aside. The application under Order 1 Rule 10 is allowed . The learned trial Court shall permit the petitioner/plaintiff to carry out necessary amendment.

¶23

With the aforesaid direction(s) / observation(s), the petition is disposed of .

¶24

Interim order granted on 10.01.2023 is hereby vacated.

¶25

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶26

vatti

Ful Bai Rathore, v. Laxmi Prasad Rathore

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ful Bai Rathore, v. Laxmi Prasad Rathore

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Setram Yadav Vs Chhattisgarh State Information Commission

Govind Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sandhya Mishra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shyam Rao(Dead) Through his legal heirs Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vijay Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Yashoda Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh