2025:CGHC:7799 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP(227) No. 914 of 2025 P.C. Shrivastava, S/o Late Shri S.K. Shrivastava, aged about 63 Years, R/o M.I.G.- 2/305, Hudco, Amdai Nagar, Bhilai, Tehsil And District - Durg, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner Versus Smt. Ruhi Shukla (Ruhi Sageer), W/o Amit Shukla, aged about 42 Years, R/o Rishab City Prime, Block A/504, Potiyakala, Durg, Tehsil And District - Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent For Petitioner : Shri Anmol Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 15/09/2025 1. Heard. 2. The matter is listed in default - learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the first default with regard to affidavit has been cured. The second default is with regard to maintainability of this writ petition which has already been held to be maintainable vide an order passed in WP227 No. 453/2023 dated 29/09/20223. For the present, the default pointed out by the Registry is ignored. 3. Also heard on admission. 4. This writ petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed being aggrieved by the order dated 15/07/2025 passed by the Court of I Additional District Judge, Durg in Civil Suit No. CS B/24/2023 by which an application filed under order 1 Rule 10 CPC filed by the petitioner/defendant was rejected. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a Suit for recovery of Rs.10,16,406/- was filed by the respondent/plaintiff against the ASHISH TIWARI Digitally signed by ASHISH TIWARI Date: 2025.09.16 11:40:15 +0530 -2- petitioner/defendant on account of some non-payment of money for construction of his house which was carried out by the respondent/plaintiff (Annexure P/2). He submits that an agreement (Annexure P/4) was also executed between the petitioner/defendant and respondent/plaintiff in which another person namely Saba Amreen was also signatory who was Engineer whereas the respondent is the interior designer of the house. Since, the suit is being filed on the basis of the agreement executed and one of the signatory has not been arrayed as a defendant in the suit. Hence, this application is filed. Therefore, this application ought to have been allowed by the learned trial court. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 7. From the record it appears that civil suit for recovery of Rs.10,16,406/- was filed by the plaintiff. Inter-alia pleading that an agreement was executed between the petitioner/defendant and respondent/plaintiff with respect to construction of the house and the conditions was also incorporated in the said agreement. It is the further pleading that entire amount has not been paid by the petitioner/defendant. Therefore, the civil suit for recovery of the remaining amount was filed. It is settled position of law that plaintiff is the Dominus litis and is entitled to array the necessary party. The submission of the petitioner/defendant is that the other signatory is the necessary party who could through light in the dispute. The submission is not acceptable as the dispute appears to be between the petitioner/defendant and respondent/plaintiff. Even otherwise, if the suit fails on account of non-joinder of the party it would be upon the respondent/defendant . 8. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in this writ petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the admission stage. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ashish