1 2025:CGHC:5215 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 153 of 2023 1 - Punna Verma S/o Late Ram Bagas Verma, Aged About 67 Years Presently R/o Ward No. 6, Shanti Nagar, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh Aadhar No. 286662831232, Mobile No. 9893101939. 2 - Shiv Verma S/o Late Ram Bagas Verma, Aged About 64 Years Presently R/o Rdi Colony, Tikrapara, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh Aadhar No. 355725698891, Moblile No. 7489039775 Both Permanent R/o Village Dhuma, P.H.No. 34, Tahsil Patan, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants/Plaintiffs. versus 1 - Manharanlal Verma S/o Late Kejuram Verma, Aged About 58 Years Aadhar No. 224513424559, Mobile No. 9406447318. 2 - Santosh Verma S/o Late Kejuram Verma, Aged About 55 Years. Both Non-Applicant Nos.1 and 2 R/o Village Dhuma, P.H. No. 34, Tahsil Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 3 - Vipul Kumar Gupta Sub Divisional OfÏcer (Revenue), Patan, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. 4 The Tahsildar Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 5 - Revenue Inspector Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 6 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicants/Defendants. AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2025.01.29 18:31:04 +0530 2 For Applicants : Shri Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate. For Defendants No.1and 2 : Shri Amit Nayak, Advocate. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari ) Order On Board 29/01/2025 1. This Revision has been filed assailing the legality and validity of order dated 04.10.2023 passed by Civil Judge Class 1, Patan District Durg, Chhattisgarh in Civil Suit No.28A/22 whereby, application preferred by Non-Applicant/Defendant Nos.1 and 2 under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of Civil Procedure Code has been allowed. 2. Necessary facts of the case are that applicants/plaintiffs have filed a civil suit for declaration of sale deed dated 20.03.1969 as null and void which has allegedly been executed by grandfather of plaintiffs namely Chandulal and his brother Gangaram in favour of Defendant No.1 when he was a minor through his father late Kejuram Verma. It is pertinent to mention that father of present plaintiffs namely late Ram Bagas Verma is one of the attesting witnesses in the aforesaid sale deed. Now, grandsons have filed civil suit to challenge the same. In their relief, Plaintiffs have sought permanent injunction as they are in possession of the subject property. In the said civil suit, Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) CPC which has been allowed. As the questioned sale deed has been executed by the grandfather of plaintiffs namely Chandulal, other sons of Chandulal namely Rameshwar, Daulal and other children of Rambagas have been proposed in the application in question. The trial Court found it proper for the sake of complete and 3 effective adjucation to allow the application in question. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants/plaintiffs submits that plaintiffs being dominus litis against whom application in question has been allowed, therefore this revision may be allowed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for Non-Applicant/Defendant No.1 and 2 would support the order impugned and would submit that Non- Applicant Nos.3, 4 and 5 are Government OfÏcers and unnecessarily they have been arrayed as party. 5. In view of the aforesaid submission, when a query was put to counsel for the applicants, he fairly admits that no relief has been sought against Non- Applicant Nos. 3, 4 and 5 and they have acted in their ofÏcial capacity. 6. After perusing the averments made in the plaint, this Court deprecates the practice of arraying government ofÏcers as party while discharging as ofÏcial duty and the trial Court is directed to delete the name of Non- Applicant Nos.3, 4 and 5 from the cause title of plaint. 7. It is well settled and has been reiterated in the matter of Mumbai International Airport Private Limited vs. Regency Convention Centre And Hotels Private Limited And Others, reported in (2010) 7 SCC 417, at Para 13 and 14 which read thus :- 13. The general rule in regard to impleadment of parties is that the plaintiff in a suit, being dominus litis, may choose the persons against whom he wishes to litigate and cannot be compelled to sue a person against whom he does not seek any relief. Consequently, a person who is not a party has no right to be impleaded against the wishes of the plaintiff. But this general rule is subject to the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10(2) of Code of Civil Procedure (“ the Code”, for short), which provides for impleadment of proper or necessary parties. The said sub- rule is extracted below: “10. (2) Court may strike out or add parties.-- The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any 4 party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added." 14. The said provision makes it clear that a court may, at any stage of the proceedings (including suits for specific performance), either upon or even without any application, and on such terms as may appear to it to be just, direct that any of the following persons may be added as a party: (a) any person who ought to have been joined as plaintiff or defendant, but not added; or (b) any person whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle the question involved in the suit. In short, the court is given the discretion to add as a party, any person who is found to be a necessary party or proper party. 8. In view of the aforesaid principles, as the trial Court has exercised its discretion to add as a party, any person who is found to be necessary or proper party for the complete and fair adjudication, this Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the order impugned. 9. In the result, this Revision being bereft of merit and substance is hereby dismissed. The plaintiffs/applicants are directed to move suitable application to strike out the name of Non-Applicant/Defendant Nos.3 to 5 from the cause title of the plaint within a period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Avinash