IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 864 of 2024 Smt. Mira Banwar, aged about 68 years, wife of Sri Manoranjan Banwar, resident of Sonari Christian Basti, H.No. 1469 'B' Block, P.O. & P.S. Sonari, Town- Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum … Petitioner -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Indu Barla, W/o Late George Barla 3. Richa Meriyan Barla, D/o Late George Barla Both resident of Sonari Christian Basti, H. No.1469 'B' Block, P.O. & P.S. Sonari, Town- Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum 4. Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, P.O. & P.S. Sakchi, Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum … Opposite Parties ----- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Kaustav Roy, Advocate Ms. Moushmi Chatterjee, Advocate Mr. Akshay Kumar Mahto, Advocate For the State : Mr. Krishna Kumar Bhatt, A.C. to S.C.-I ----- 04/16.01.2025 Heard Mr. Kaustav Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Krishna Kumar Bhatt, learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying therein to quash the order dated 24.05.2024 passed in Original Suit No.10 of 2020 by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Jamshedpur, whereby, he has been pleased to allow the petition filed by the defendants and directed to add M/s Tata Steel Ltd. and JUSCO as defendants. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in the aforesaid original suit, the said order has been passed, whereby, M/s Tata Steel Ltd. and JUSCO has been directed to be added as defendants. He submits that on the basis of partition, the property was acquired by the -1- C.M.P. No. 864 of 2024 plaintiff and in view of that, the learned Court has wrongly allowed the petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that it transpires that the said property was of M/s TISCO Ltd. and JUSCO interest is also there and the ground has been taken that the property in question was leased out to some persons. He submits that in view of that, the learned Court has rightly passed the impugned order. 5. The suit was instituted by the plaintiff for declaration and confirmation of possession and permanent injunction of the suit property. It has come in the order of the learned Court that the State Government has leased the land to the lessee as per the terms of lease dated 01.08.1985 executed earlier by the State Government in favour of M/s Tata Steel Company and subsequently lease was renewed on 20.08.2005 and all monthly holdings are converted into regular sublease. It has also come that M/s TISCO Ltd. and JUSCO, Jamshedpur are the custodian of the lease land. Order I Rule 10(2) CPC is meant for adjudication of real controversy between the parties and if the Court comes to a conclusion that any party is necessary, it is a discretion of the learned Court to pass such order. 6. In the aforesaid background, the learned Court has rightly passed the impugned order and, as such, this petition is, hereby, dismissed. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Ajay/ -2- C.M.P. No. 864 of 2024