1 CGHC010043002023 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 112 of 2023 1 - Priyank Singhania S/o Late Shri Ashok Singhania, Aged About 39 Years R/o Vrindavan, Behind Indusind Bank, Geeta Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh Director, Avinash Infra Project Private Limited, Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Anil Kumar Dubey S/o Late Shri Radheshyam Dubey Aged About 60 Years R/o Beside Sahu Saw Mill, Pandritarai, Raipur, Tehsil And, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Pranjal Dubey S/o Shri Anil Dubey Aged About 24 Years R/o Beside Sahu Saw Mill, Pandritarai, Raipur,tehsil And, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Vijay Kumar Ahuja (Died Through Lrs) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 07-03-2025 3- (A) Smt. Anita Ahuja Wd/o Late Vijay Kumar Ahuja Aged About 57 Years R/o House No. 5, Gali No. 1, Ravigram, Telibandha, Raipur (C.G.) 3- (B) Smt. Disha Nikhil Chhabriya W/o Nikhil Kanhaiyalal Chhabriya Aged About 35 Years D/o Late Vijay Kumar Ahuja, R/o House No. 121, Teli Pura, Near Nehru Putla, Itwari Nagpur City, Nagpur (Maharashtra) 3- (C) Rahul Ahuja S/o Late Vijay Kumar Ahuja Aged About 34 Years R/o House No. 5, Gali No. 1, Ravigram, Telibandha, Raipur (C.G.) 4 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, Raipur,, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Shri Rishabh Bajaj, Advocate. For Respondents 1&2 : Shri Pranjal Agrawal, Advocate. For State : Shri Rohan Shukla, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 21.07. 202 6 1. The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated INDRAJEET SAHU Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2026.07.22 10:20:20 +0530 2 21.11.2022 passed by VIth Civil Judge, Class-II, Raipur, in Civil Suit No.249-A/2021 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 of CPC has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner is the Director or erstwhile Jai Bhole Agro Firm Pvt. Ltd. and presently he is the Director of Avinash Infra Project Pvt. Ltd. The said Jai Bhole Agro Firm has been made as a party defendant No.1 in the Civil Suit filed by the present respondents No.1&2 for declaration of title and vacant possession in consequence of violation of the terms of the agreement dated 26.02.2018. In the proceeding of the civil suit, the petitioner filed an application under Section 151 of CPC for substituting the name of Jai Bhol Agro Firm Pvt. Ltd. to Avinash Infra Project Pvt. Ltd. as Jai Bhole Agro Firm have been amalgamated in the said Avinash Infra Project on 25.03.2014 and now the said Jai Bhole Agro Firm is not in existence. Since the said firm is not in existence, no effective decree could be passed against a non existing firm and therefore Avinash Infra Project may be substituted in place of Jai Bhole Agro Firm, yet, the application has been rejected. He would further submit that no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiffs if they prosecute their suit in the correct name of defendant. Therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and the writ petition may be allowed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No.1&2 opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and would submit that the petitioner’s firm Jai Bhole Agro Firm Pvt. Ltd. is amalgamated in Avinash Infra Project Pvt. Ltd. on 25.03.2014, however, they entered into an agreement with the plaintiffs on 26.02.2018 in the name of Jai Bhole Agro Firm Pvt. Ltd. At that time 3 they have not disclosed that the said firm has already been amalgamated with Avinash Infra Project Pvt. Ltd. in the year, 2014. Further, the petitioner has executed a deed of exchange on 18.04.2018 (Annexure R/3) that too in the name of Jai Bhole Agro Firm Pvt. Ltd. and if Jai Bhole Agro Firm Pvt. Ltd. has been amalgamated in Avinash Infra Project in the year 2014 as per the statement of petitioner himself, why they have entered into agreement and exchange deed in the name of Jai Bhole Agro Firm Pvt. Ltd.. The act of the petitioner shows their Modus operandi to deprive the plaintiff from their property. The Trial Court has also considered the said fact that if in the year 2014 Jai Bhole Agro Firm is amalgamated in Avinash Infra Project, they ought not to have entered into an agreement and exchange deed in the name of said Jai Bhole Agro Firm. Therefore, the rejection of the application by the trial court is absolutely justified and needs no interference. 4. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 5. The claim of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that, his application for substitution of the name of the firm has been rejected by the trial court, however, he could not dispute that the said Jai Bhole Firm Pvt. Ltd. has entered in to an agreement with the plaintiff on 26.02.20218 and the said firm has also executed an exchange deed on 10.04.2018 in the name of Jai Bhole Agro Firm Pvt. Ltd. No deed of amalgamation, as has been claimed by the petitioner, has been annexed in the present writ petition. Though the trial court has observed in its order dated 21.11.2022 that to substantiate the claim of the petitioner, they are required to file those documents. Even otherwise, if the petitioner firm Jai Bhole Agro Firm Pvt. Ltd. has been 4 amalgamated in Avinash Infra Project vide deed dated 25.03.2014, then there is no explanation as to why they have entered into an agreement with the plaintiff on 26.02.2018 and executed an exchange deed on 10.04.2018. Since the very basis of the plaintiff’s claim is on that agreement i.e. the agreement executed by Jai Bhole Agro Firm Pvt. Ltd. in favour of the plaintiff, they have made Jai Bhole Agro Firm as a party defendant No.1 in the suit, and therefore, I do find any perversity in the order impugned passed by the trial court rejecting the application of the petitioner for substitution of the name of defendant No.1 from Jai Bhole Agro Firm Pvt. Ltd. to M/s Avinash Infra Project Pvt. Ltd. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Interim order dated 08.02.2023 stands vacated. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder