1 2025:CGHC:18506 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 369 of 2025  Ramesh Kumar Lalwani S/o Late Prahalad Rai Lalwani Aged About 50 Years R/o Main Road Korba, Tahsil And District - Korba (C.G.), Present Address- T.P. Nagar, Korba, Tahsil And District- Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Sub - Divisional Officer Water Management, Sub-Division- Hasdeo Barrage, Darri, District- Korba (C.G.) 2. Executive Engineer, Public Works Department (Building And Road), Rampur, Korba, Tahsil And District- Korba (C.G.) 3. Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Korba/land Acquisition Officer, Korba, Office Of Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Korba, Tahsil And District- Korba (C.G.) 4. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Korba, Officer Of District Collector, Korba (C.G.) 5. Sub-Divisional Officer, Public Works Department (Bridge Construction), Rampur, Korba, Tahsil And District- Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 24-04-2025 1) Petitioner has filed this petition assailing the order passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, District- Korba (C.G.) in Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.04.24 18:14:31 +0530 2 Civil Suit Class A (DJ ADJ)/ 13/ 2024 dated 20.03.2025 whereby the application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC read with Section 151 of CPC has been dismissed. 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that suit property bearing Khasra No. 558/5 ad-measuring 0.05 acre situated over P.H. No. 16, R.N.M.- Korba, Teh. & District- Korba was purchased from the proposed defendant. He contends that in order to prove the ingredients of the sale-deed, the proposed defendant is a necessary party. He argues that an application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of CPC was moved before the learned trial Court but same has been rejected . He prays to set-aside the order dated 20.03.2025. 3) On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes. 4) Heard. 5) Taking into consideration the fact that (i) petitioner-plaintiff has not made any allegation against the proposed defendant ; (ii) no relief has been sought against him and ; (iii) an effective decree can be passed even in his absence, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out to interfere with the order impugned. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya