1 CGHC010287692026 2026:CGHC:33349 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 964 of 2026 1 - Nakulram Mandavi S/o Benuram Mandavi Aged About 53 Years Both Are Cultivator And R/o Village Sirsida Tehsil Charama District Kanker C.G. (Defendants) 2 - Kanwla Bail Mandavi W/o Nakulram Mandavi Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Sirsida Tehsil Charama District Kanker C.G. (Defendants) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Canara Bank, Branch Dhamtari Through The Branch Manager Paras Kumar Sah, Aged About 44, Years Son Of Pulkit Sah, Presently R/o Canara Bank, Kothari Park Bastar Road Dhamtari (The Authorized Officer) (Palaintiff) 2 - Hiresingh Mandavi Aged About 80, Years Son Of Shivnath Mandavi Cultivator And Resident Of Village Sirsida Tehsil Charama, District Kanker C.G. (Defendants) 3 - Mahraji Sevta Son Of Late Bukhuram Sevta, R/o Village Sirsida Tehsil Charama District Kanker C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Puranjay Bhatt, Advocate on advance copy (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.) Order on Board 31/07/2026 1. Heard. 2. Present is a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 04.05.2026 passed by learned Second District Judge, Dhamtari in Civil Suit No. 6B/2023, whereby the application filed by the defendant No.1 under SUMIT KUMAR Digitally signed by SUMIT KUMAR Date: 2026.08.01 11:12:36 +0530 2 Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the defendant No.1 before the learned trial Court where the plaintiff/respondent No.1 is prosecuting a suit for recovery of the borrowed amount of Rs. 16,11,746/-. During pendency of the suit, the defendant No.1 filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC for impleading one Mahraji Sevta as the defendant No.4 on the ground that the defendant No.1 made a complaint before the Superintendent of Police on 07.03.2025 in which the said person, Mahraji Sevta admitted his guilt before the police authorities and since he admitted that he also involved in the loan process advanced in favor of the defendants by the plaintiff bank, the said person, Mahraji Sevta is also a necessary party to the suit, therefore, the plaintiff may be directed to implead the proposed defendant in the suit. 4. He would further submit that the present defendants are innocent and on their name, the proposed defendant have completed all the formalities and obtained loan. The defendants themselves are victim of fraud committed by the said Mahraji Sevta. He would further submit that since he is admitted his guilt before the police authorities, he would be the necessary party in the present suit, yet the learned trial Court has rejected the application holding that the proposed defendant is neither necessary nor proper party in the suit, therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and the application filed by the petitioner/defendant No.1 may be allowed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 objected and submitted that all the documentation are in the name of 3 defendants No.1 to 3 and they borrowed a loan from the bank, and therefore, the bank is prosecuting against the defendants for recovery of their loan amount. The proposed defendant is neither necessary nor proper party as he has no connection with the borrowing loan from the plaintiff bank. Therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly rejected the application and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the document annexed with the petition. 7. From perusal of the copy of the plaint Annexure P-2 as well as the application filed by the petitioner Annexure P-5, it transpires that the petitioner, who is the defendant No.1 in the suit, has claimed that they being cheated by the proposed defendant and obtained loan in the name of the defendants from the plaintiff bank and on a complaint being made on 07.03.2025 to the Superintendent of Police, Dhamtari, the said proposed defendant Mahraji Sevta admitted his guilt, and therefore, he would be the necessary party in the suit. However, they could not deny that all the documentation in the loan process are in the names of the present defendants. 8. The impleadment of necessary or proper party on the behest of the defendants have been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. vs. Regency Convention Centre & Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and Others ”, 2010 Volume 7 SCC 417, in Para 13, it has been held as under :- “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 4 wishes of the plaintiff. But this general rule is subject to the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the 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 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." 9. From perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court, it is quite vivid that the learned trial Court has considered that Mahraji Sevta is not the neither necessary nor proper party and he has no nexus with the alleged loan transaction as has been claimed by the plaintiff bank and all the documentation and loan formalities have been completed in the name of defendants and they were the loanee from the plaintiff bank. 10. From perusal of the entire documents annexed with the petition as well as in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. vs. Regency Convention Centre & Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and others” (supra), I do not find any jurisdictional error or perversity in the order passed by the learned trial Court. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Sumit