1 2025:CGHC:19660 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 63 of 2021  Vijay Gupta S/o Late Durga Prasad Gupta Aged About 58 Years R/o Kila Ward, Juna Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Kamal Kishore Gupta S/o Late Durga Prasad Gupat Aged About 53 Years R/o Kila Ward Juna Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ......Plantiff No. 1, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2. Yashwant Gupta S/o Late Durga Prasad Gupta Aged About 50 Years R/o Kila Ward Juna Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ......Plantiff No. 2, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3. Smt. Ambika Gupta W/o Late Durga Prasad Gupta Aged About 73 Years R/o Kila Ward Juna Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ......Defendant No. 1, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4. Deepchand Gupta S/o Late Durga Prasad Gupat Aged About 48 Years R/o Kila Ward Juna Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ......Defendant No. 2, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Rajnish Singh Baghel, Advocate For Respondents no. 1 and 2 : None, though served. For Respondents No.3 and 4 : Mr. Sushil Dubey, Advocate For State : Mr. Sanjeev Agrawal, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 2 30-04-2025 1) Petitioner has filed this petition against the order passed by First Additional District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. 52-A/2019 dated 21.01.2020 whereby application moved by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC was rejected. 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that plaintiffs have filed suit against defendants No. 1 and 2 for declaration of title and permanent in junction inter-alia on the ground that suit property is their ancestral property and defendant No. 1 has executed a gift deed in favor of defendant No. 2. He further submits that petitioner herein is the elder brother of plaintiffs and defendant No. 2 and son of defendant No. 1 but he was not made a party-defendant in the suit, therefore, application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC was moved and same has been rejected by the learned trial Court. He prays to allow the application. 3) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 3 and 4 opposes. He submits that there was partition of the suit property between the brothers of petitioner and petitioner has no right over the suit property. 4) Learned State counsel submits that there is dispute between plaintiffs and defendants. 5) Heard. 6) Taking into consideration the fact that (i) suit property is an ancestral one and same has been pleaded by the plaintiffs in para 3 of the plaint and (ii) petitioner is the elder brother of plaintiffs and defendant No. 2, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, he is a necessary party to the lis. 7) In view of the above, the order dated 21.01.2020 is hereby set-aside and application moved by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of 3 CPC stands allowed. The learned trial Court is directed to permit the petitioner to carry out the necessary amendment. Trial Court is also directed to make all endeavors to conclude the pending proceeding at the earliest. 8) Accordingly, petition stands allowed. 9) Interim relief granted earlier by this Court stands vacated. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya