-1- 2025:CGHC:19207 NAFR HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 394 of 2025 1 - Prakash Chand Jain S/o Late Sukh Lal Jain Aged About 44 Years (Wrongly Mentioned As Prakash Chandra Jain In The Order) R/o Old Bus Stand, Korba, Tahsil And District - Korba Chhattisgarh. 2 - Paras Chand Jain S/o Late Sukh Lal Jain Aged About 42 Years (Wrongly Mentioned As Paras Chnad Jain In The Order) R/o Old Bus Stand, Korba, Tahsil And District - Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1- Sub Divisional officer Water Management, Sub-Division - Hasdeo Barrage, Darri, District - Korba Chhattisgarh. 2 - Executive Engineer Public Works Department (Building And Road), Rampur, Korba, Tahsil And District - Korba Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sub-Divisional officer (Revenue), Korba/ Land Acquisition officer, Korba office of Sub-Divisional officer (Revenue), Korba, Tahsil And District - Korba Chhattisgarh. 4 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Korba, officer of District Collector, Korba Chhattisgarh. 5 - Sub-Divisional officer Public Works Department (Bridge Construction), Rampur, Korba, Tahsil And District - Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Dharmesh Srivastava, Advocate For State : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- 29.04.2025 1) Petitioner has filed this petition assailing the order passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, District- Korba (C.G.) in 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. 557/4 ad-measuring 0.17 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 NADIM