1 2025:CGHC:41086 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP(227) No. 11 of 2023 * - Ful Bai Rathore, D/o Late Khubi Ram Rathore Aged About 70 Years Resident Of Village - Purani Basti Kharsia, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. (Plaintiff) ... Petitioner Versus 1 - Laxmi Prasad Rathore, S/o Late Khubiram Rathore Aged About 68 Years Resident Of Village - Purani Basti, Kharsia, District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh. (Defendant) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Collector, Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. (Defendant) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Patel, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 For Respondent No. 2 : : Mr. Govind Dewangan, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Shivendra Bhardwaj, Advocate Mr. Shubham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 11/08/2025 1. The petitioner/plaintiff has filed this petition assailing the order passed by the learned Ist 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. 2. Mr. R.S. Patel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff would submit that the suit was filed by the plaintiff for declaration of Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.08.14 19:59:36 +0530 2 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. 3. On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the respective respondents would oppose. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. With the aforesaid direction(s) / observation(s), the petition is disposed of. 8. Interim order granted on 10.01.2023 is hereby vacated. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti