[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Dhaniram vs Yagyanarayan on 30 March, 2026
1
Digitally signed
NAFR
ALOK by ALOK
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.03.30
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
19:19:01 +0530
WP227 No. 364 of 2026
1 - Dhaniram S/o Late Chintaram, Caste- Teli, R/o Village- Pavni, Tahsil-
Bilaigarh, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, C.G. (Plaintiff)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - Yagyanarayan S/o Late Shobhit Ram Caste- Teli, R/o Village- Pavni,
Tahsil- Bilaigarh, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, C.G. (Defendant)
2 - Bhupendra S/o Late Shobhit Ram Caste- Teli, R/o Village- Pavni, Tahsil-
Bilaigarh, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, C.G. (Defendant)
3 - Revti D/o Late Shobhit Ram Caste- Teli, R/o Village- Pavni, Tahsil-
Bilaigarh, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, C.G. (Defendant)
4 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Sarangarh, District-
Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, C.G. (Defendant)
5 - Kamlesh Singh S/o Maniram Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Village-
Pavni, Tahsil- Bilaigarh, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, C.G. (Proposed Def.)
6 - Dinesh Singh S/o Maniram Sahu Aged About 48 Years R/o Village- Pavni,
Tahsil- Bilaigarh, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, C.G.
7 - Digeshwar Singh S/o Maniram Sahu Aged About 38 Years R/o Village-
Pavni, Tahsil- Bilaigarh, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, C.G.
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C. R. Sahu, Advocate.
For Respondent-State : Ms. Richa Sahu, Panel Lawyer.
2
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.
Order on Board
30/03/2026
1. Heard.
2. Present is a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by
the petitioner against the order dated 18.02.2026 passed by learned Civil
Judge Junior Division, Bilaigarh, District-Sarangarh-Bilaigarh in Civil Suit No.
01-A/2025, whereby the application filed by the intervenors under Order 1
Rule 10 of CPC for impleading them as a party defendant in the suit was
allowed and the plaintiff has been directed to implead the intervenors as the
party defendant in the civil suit.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit thar the petitioner is a
plaintiff before the learned trial Court who is prosecuting a civil suit for
declaration of tile and permanent injunction against the original defendants
with respect to the suit land Khasra No. 2936/1-A/1 area 0.032 hectare
situated at village Pavni, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District-Sarangarh-Bilaigarh. The
said land was recorded in the name of one Garjan Teli and after his death his
two sons Bharatlal and Shatrughan were in possession of the same. In the
year 1988, they exchanged their land and over the suit land the plaintiff had
gone to Delhi to earn his livelihood in the year 1990. By their exchange deed
the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land since more than 36 years but the
defendants are trying to get their name mutated in the revenue records with
the collusion of the revenue authorities, therefore, he filed the civil suit
against the defendant. In the civil suit the proposed defendants/intervenors
have filed an application that they are in possession of the suit land and
interested party in the suit, therefore, they may also be arrayed as a party
defendant in the suit so that they may protect their interest. He would further
submits that the plaintiff is a dominus litis of the suit and the stranger cannot
be made as a party defendant, yet the learned trial Court allowed the
application filed by the intervenors and directed them to be made as a party
defendant in the suit. No any documents with respect to their title or
possession over the suit land has been filed by them and only to delay the
proceeding of the suit they have filed their application, therefore, impugned
order may be set aside and their application may be rejected.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material
annexed with the petition.
5. The question involved in the present writ petition is whether the learned trial
Court has rightly allowed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC
filed by the intervenors or not. From the perusal of the plaint, it transpires that
the plaintiff is prosecuting a civil suit for declaration of title and permanent
injunction against the original defendants, claiming that they are trying to get
their names mutated and to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land. During
the pendency of the suit, the proposed defendants/intervenors filed an
application on 12.06.2025, claiming that they are in possession of the suit
land and are necessary parties to the suit, and that the plaintiff may be
directed to implead them as parties. When the intervenors claim to be in
possession of the suit land, and the plaintiff also claims possession and has
sought relief of permanent injunction against the original defendants, a prima
facie interest appears to be reflected in favour of the intervenors. The learned
trial Court, considering the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC and in
order to avoid multiplicity of litigation, directed that the intervenors be
impleaded as party defendants in the suit to avoid any controversy. It is true
that the plaintiff is the dominus litis of his suit; however, interested parties are
also required to be impleaded in order to avoid a controversial decree and
multiplicity of suits.
6. It is beneficial for the plaintiff also to determine the issue at one instance
instead of filing any other suit against the person who are claiming to be in
possession of the suit land allegedly claiming by the plaintiff whether or not
the proposed defendants may prove their claim before the learned trial Court
depends upon the evidence produced by them during the trial.
7. I do not find any infirmity or illegality in passing of the order of the learned
trial Court and to set aside the impugned judgment dated 18.02.2026.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)
Judge
Alok
