1 CGHC010326462026 2026:CGHC:37706 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1074 of 2026 • Sanjay Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Trijuginarayan Agrawal Aged About 50 Years R/o- House No. 88, Avrethi Para, Near New Bus Stand, Balbhadra Ward Bhatapara, Tahsil- Bhatapara, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) Mo. No. 9827166533 ... Petitioner versus 1. Animesh Agrawal S/o Late Awadh Bihari Agrawal Aged About 48 Years R/o- Ward No. 12, Shivaji Chowk, Bus Stand Rajim, Tahsil- Rajim, District- Gariyaband (C.G.). 2. Chandralata Agrawal W/o Late Awadh Bihari Agrawal Aged About 67 Years R/o- Ward No. 12, Shivaji Chowk, Bus Stand Rajim, Tahsil- Rajim, District- Gariyaband (C.G.). 3. Smt. Shyama Agrawal W/o Late Rajesh Agrawal Aged About 43 Years R/o- Ward No. 12, Shivaji Chowk, Bus Stand Rajim, Tahsil- Rajim, District- Gariyaband (C.G.). 4. Ku. Niharika D/o Late Rajesh Agrawal Aged About 16 Years (Now 18 Years), R/o- Ward No. 12, Shivaji Chowk, Bus Stand Rajim, Tahsil- Rajim, District- Gariyaband (C.G.). 5. Naman Agrawal S/o Late Rajesh Agrawal Aged About 8 Years Through Next Friend Mother Smt. Shyama Agrawal, W/o Late Rajesh Agrawal, R/o- Ward No. 12, Shivaji Chowk, Bus Stand Rajim, Tahsil- Rajim, District- Gariyaband (C.G.). 6. Pranadhar Agrawal S/o Late Atmanand Agrawal Aged About 72 Years R/o Agrawal Para Arang, Tahsil- Arang, District- Raipur (C.G.). 7. Kartik Agrawal S/o Shri Rajeev Agrawal Aged About 7 Years Through His Next Friend Father Shri Rajeev Agrawal, Aged About 48 Years, S/o DEEPTI JHA Digitally signed by DEEPTI JHA 2 Late Rambihari Agrawal, R/o- Near Rest House, Shankar Ward Bhatapara, Tahsil- Bhatapara, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.). 8. Vartika Agrawal D/o Shri Rajeev Agrawal Aged About 10 Years Through His Next Friend Father Shri Rajeev Agrawal, Aged About 48 Years, S/o Late Rambihari Agrawal, R/o- Near Rest House, Shankar Ward Bhatapara, Tahsil- Bhatapara, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.). 9. Lipika Agrawal D/o Shri Rajeev Agrawal Aged About 12 Years Through His Next Friend Shri Rajeev Agrawal, Aged About 48 Years, S/o Late Rambihari Agrawal, R/o- Near Rest House, Shankar Ward Bhatapara, Tahsil- Bhatapara, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.). 10. Bhavya Agrawal D/o Sanjay Bihari Agrawal Aged About 6 Years Through His Next Friend Father Shri Sanjay Bihari Agrawal, Aged About 50 Years, S/o Late Rambihari Agrawal, R/o- Near Rest House, Shankar Ward Bhatapara, Tahsil- Bhatapara, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.). 11. Sanjay Agrawal S/o Late Rambihari Agrawal Aged About 50 Years R/o- Near Rest House, Shankar Ward Bhatapara, Tahsil- Bhatapara, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.). 12. Rajeev Agrawal S/o Late Rambihari Agrawal Aged About 48 Years R/o- Near Rest House, Shankar Ward Bhatapara, Tahsil- Bhatapara, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.). 13. Sandeep Agrawal S/o Late Rambihari Agrawal Aged About 43 Years R/o- Near Rest House, Shankar Ward Bhatapara, Tahsil- Bhatapara, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.). 14. Smt. Ramkali Agrawal W/o Late Rambihari Agrawal Aged About 69 Years R/o- Near Rest House, Shankar Ward Bhatapara, Tahsil- Bhatapara, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.). 15. Smt. Pratibha Agrawal D/o Late Rambihari Agrawal Aged About 47 Years W/o Shri Rajkumar Agrawal, R/o- Near Rest House, Rajim, Tahsil- Rajim, District- Gariyaband (C.G.). 16. Smt. Pratima Agrawal D/o Late Rambihari Agrawal Aged About 45 Years W/o Shri Ajay Agrawal, R/o- Baniyapara Purani Basti Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur (C.G.). 17. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.). ... Respondents 3 For Petitioner : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 to 5 : Mr. Abhijeet Mishra, Advocate on caveat. For State/Respondent No.17 : Ms. Richa Sahu, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 21/08/2026 1. Heard. 2. The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 03.07.2026 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the learned Second Additional Judge, Bhatapara to the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Balodabazar (C.G.) in Civil Suit No.3/A/2022, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents No. 1 to 5 are prosecuting a Civil Suit before the learned trial Court for declaration of title, permanent injunction, declaring the Will Deeds dated 16.08.2017 and 11.06.2018 as null and void and also for possession of the suit land. The petitioner Sanjay Kumar Agrawal, S/o Trijuginarayan Agrawal, has not been made a party/defendant in the suit before the learned trial Court. The petitioner is in possession of the suit land by virtue of an agreement executed by the defendant No.1 Pranadhar Agrawal, to cultivate the same on his behalf. The defendant No. 1 is claiming his title and possession over the suit land, and despite knowing the fact that the petitioner/intervenor is in physical possession of the suit land on behalf of the defendant No.1. he has not been made a party/defendant in the said civil suit. Therefore, the petitioner has filed 4 an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC for impleading himself as a party/defendant in the said suit. He would further submit that since the petitioner is in the actual physical possession of the suit land on behalf of the defendant No. 1 by virtue of the agreement executed by him, he should be impleaded as the defendant in the suit. The defendant No.1 himself is not properly defending his case, though he also filed his counter claim before the learned trial Court. The application filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the learned trial Court on the ground that defendant No. 1 is properly prosecuting his case and the possession of the petitioner, if any is on behalf of the defendant No. 1; he could not be treated as a necessary party in the suit, and the same can be decided even in his absence. Since the petitioner has a substantial right over the suit land, he may be impleaded as party/defendant in the said civil Suit. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 to 5 on caveat would oppose the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner and would submit that the petitioner is claiming possession over the suit land, through the defendant No. 1. The petitioner is not having any substantial title over the suit property and claiming through the defendant No. 1, who is already a party defendant No. 1 and properly defending his case by filing counter claim before the learned trial Court. The petitioner is neither a necessary nor a proper party in the suit. His interest in the suit land is only a commercial interest between the defendant No. 1 and the petitioner, and there is no legal interest over the suit land. Since the petitioner is neither a legal heir nor having any legal interest over the suit land, he cannot be impleaded as a party/defendant in the said civil suit and the plaintiffs 5 have properly arrayed the party/defendant, against whom he is claiming right and title over the suit land. The order passed by the learned trial Court is based upon proper appreciation of evidence available on record, which does not call for any interference by this Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 6. In the present case, the petitioner is claiming that he is in possession of the suit land by virtue of the agreement dated 21.02.2021 executed by defendant No.1 and cultivating the suit land every year; therefore, he is the necessary party to the suit, and he should also be impleaded as a defendant. From perusal of the documents and a copy of the plaint annexed with this writ petition, it transpires that the original owner of the suit land was one Awadh Bihari Agrawal, who had two sons namely Animesh Agrawal and Rajesh Agrawal and also had two wives namely Chandralata Agrawal and Pramila Agrawal. The claim of the petitioner is that earlier he was in possession of the suit land by virtue of the agreement executed by Late Pramila Agrawal, who died on 13.11.2020. Thereafter, the petitioner is claiming possession over the suit land by virtue of the agreement dated 21.02.2021 executed by the defendant No. 1/Pranadhar Agrawal. The petitioner's claim is not based on title but based on the agreement allegedly executed by defendant No. 1/Pranadhar Agrawal. It is not in dispute that the defendant No. 1 Pranadhar Agrawal, is defending his case, has filed his written statement and has also filed his counter claim. Thus, the petitioner is 6 stepping in the shoes of the defendant No. 1, who is already a party in the suit and defending his case. 7. The issue of impleadment of necessary and proper party came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Mumbai International Airport Private Limited Vs. Regency Convention Centre & Hotels Private Limited and Others”, reported in (2010) 7 SCC 417. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in para 13, that:- “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 I 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 7 added.” 8. From perusal of the entire documents annexed with this present writ petition, it does not disclose any legal right of the petitioner, who inherited the land through his ancestors, but his claim is only with regard to the agreement executed by the defendant No. 1. 9. A similar situation arises before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Others” reported in (1992) 2 SCC 524; the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:- “5. It was argued that the Court cannot direct addition of parties against the wishes of the plaintiff who cannot be compelled to proceed against a person against whom he does not claim many relief. Plaintiff is no doubt dominus litis and is not bound to sue every possible adverse claimant in the same suit. He may choose to implead only those persons as defendants against whom he wises to proceed though under Order 1 Rule 3, to avoid multiplicity of suit and needless expenses all persons against whom the right to relief is alleged to exist may be joined as defendants. However, the Court may at any stage of the suit direct addition of parties. A party can be joined as defendant even though the plaintiff does not think that he has any cause of action against him. Rule 10 specifically provides that it is open to the Court to add at any stage of the suit a necessary party or a person whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon the settle all the questions involved in the suit. 6. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 gives a wide 8 discretion to the Court to meet every case of defect of parties and is not affected by the inaction of the plaintiff to bring the necessary parties on record. The question of impleadment of a party has to be decided on the touchstone of Order 1 Rule 10 which provides that only a necessary or a proper party may be added. A necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively. A proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceeding. The addition of parties is generally not a question of initial jurisdiction of the Court but of a judicial discretion which has to be exercised in view of all the facts and circumstances of a particular case.” 10. Since the petitioner is an intervenor, who claimed to be made as a party/defendant in the said civil suit, but it is the plaintiffs, who are the dominus litis of the suit land and has to decide that who would be the necessary or proper party in the said civil suit, as it has been observed earlier that the petitioner has not inherited any land by any mode from his ancestors, but he is claiming possession over the suit land by virtue of the cultivation agreement executed by the defendant No. 1. Thus, he cannot be said to be a necessary or proper party in the said civil suit, therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC for impleading himself as the party/defendant in the said civil suit. 11. Having considered the rival submissions and the material available on record, this Court finds that the petitioner does not claim any independent right, title or interest in the suit property. His claim of 9 possession is founded solely upon the cultivation agreement allegedly executed by defendant No. 1, through whom he claims to be in possession. Defendant No.1 is already a party to the suit, has filed his written statement as well as counter claim and is contesting the proceedings. In such circumstances, the presence of the petitioner is neither necessary for passing an effective decree nor required for complete and effectual adjudication of the questions involved in the suit. The petitioner. who claims through defendant No.1, cannot be permitted to step into the shoes of defendant No.1 merely on the ground that he is allegedly in physical possession of the suit land on his behalf. His alleged rights, if any, arising out of the agreement are distinct and cannot convert him into either a necessary or proper party to a suit primarily concerning declaration of title, validity of the Will Deeds, injunction and possession between the plaintiffs and the existing defendants. The learned trial Court has, therefore, committed no jurisdictional error or perversity in rejecting the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. 12. Consequently, no interference in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is warranted. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Deepti Jha