1 CGHC010332542026 2026:CGHC:39389 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1157 of 2026 Chotelal S/o Late Sadhuram Patel Aged About 62 Years R/o Village- Asounda Tahsil And District- Sakti Chhattisgarh, ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Deepak Kumar S/o Tularam Patel R/o Village- Asounda Tahsil And District- Sakti Chhattisgarh 2 - Tusiram S/o Sadhuram Patel R/o Village- Asounda Tahsil And District- Sakti Chhattisgarh, 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector Sakti District- Sakti Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jai Kumar Dewangan, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Dy.G.A. for the State (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.) Order on Board 08/09/2026 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 20.07.2026 SUMIT KUMAR Digitally signed by SUMIT KUMAR Date: 2026.09.11 18:00:55 +0530 2 passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sakti in Civil Suit No. 56A/2025 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondents No.1 and 2 are prosecuting a suit before the learned trial Court against the respondent No.3 and claiming the declaration of title and possession over the suit land bearing Khasra No. 273/41 area 1.50 Acre and Khasra No. 273/42 area 0.50 Acre situated at Village – Asounda, Tehsil and District – Sakti. He would submit that on the complaint made by the petitioner, the Nayab Tehsildar, Sakti vide its order dated 12.09.2022 canceled the Patta granted to the plaintiffs against which the plaintiffs preferred the revision before the Additional Collector, Sakti which has also been dismissed vide order dated 21.03.2024. He would further submit that the case of the plaintiffs before the learned trial Court is that a Patta was granted in their favour on 11.06.1988, pursuant to which they developed the suit land and have been cultivating the same ever since. Upon a complaint made by the petitioner, the Patta granted in favour of the plaintiffs was cancelled. In view thereof, the petitioner is a necessary party to the suit. However, despite the petitioner being a necessary party, the plaintiffs have failed to implead him as a defendant and in absence of the petitioner, the suit suffers from non-joinder of a necessary party, and therefore, cannot be effectively proceeded with or adjudicated upon, therefore, the plaintiffs may be directed to implead him as a party defendant in the suit. However, the learned trial Court, without properly appreciating the aforesaid facts and circumstances, rejected the petitioner's application, 3 observing that the dispute is essentially between the plaintiffs and the State and that no right of the petitioner is involved so as to warrant his impleadment in the suit. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court may be set aside and the plaintiffs may be directed to implead the petitioner as a party defendant in the suit. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the document annexed with the petition. 5. It transpires from the plaint (Annexure P-1) filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2/plaintiffs that they are claiming title over the suit land on the basis of the Patta allegedly granted in their favour on 11.06.1988. The plaintiffs have further claimed that they have been in possession of and cultivating the suit land since 1988. It is their specific case that, pursuant to a complaint made by the petitioner, the Patta granted in their favour was subsequently cancelled. The plaintiffs themselves have pleaded that the suit land is Government land and that the Patta in respect thereof was granted to them by the competent authority. Thus, the dispute, as pleaded in the plaint, essentially concerns the alleged right of the plaintiffs arising out of the Patta granted by the State and its subsequent cancellation. The petitioner has not been able to demonstrate any independent right, title or interest in the suit land so as to establish that his presence is necessary for the effective and complete adjudication of the dispute. Merely because the petitioner lodged a complaint pursuant to which the Patta granted in favour of the plaintiffs was cancelled, he cannot, by that circumstance alone, be treated as a necessary party to the suit. More particularly, when the plaintiffs have already impleaded the State Government as a party 4 defendant, being the authority from whom they claim to have derived their alleged title and possession over the suit land, the presence of the petitioner is neither necessary nor indispensable for adjudication of the controversy involved in the suit. In the absence of any pleading or material demonstrating any right, title or interest of the petitioner in the suit land, his impleadment as a party defendant is wholly unwarranted. The learned trial Court has, therefore, rightly rejected the application seeking his impleadment, and no interference with the impugned order is warranted. 6. In the case of Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. v. Regency Convention Centre & Hotels Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2010) 7 SCC 417, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has 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 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." 14. The said provision makes it clear that a court may, at any stage of the proceedings (including suits for specific performance), either upon or even without any application, and on such terms as may appear to it to be just, direct that 5 any of the following persons may be added as a party: (a) any person who ought to have been joined as plaintiff or defendant, but not added; or (b) any person whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle the questions involved in the suit. In short, the court is given the discretion to add as a party, any person who is found to be a necessary party or proper party. 15. A "necessary party" is a person who ought to have been joined as a party and in whose absence no effective decree could be passed at all by the court. If a "necessary party" is not impleaded, the suit itself is liable to be dismissed. A "proper party" is a party who, though not a necessary party, is a person whose presence would enable the court to completely, effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all matters in dispute in the suit, though he need not be a person in favour of or against whom the decree is to be made. If a person is not found to be a proper or necessary party, the court has no jurisdiction to implead him, against the wishes of the plaintiff. The fact that a person is likely to secure a right/interest in a suit property, after the suit is decided against the plaintiff, will not make such person a necessary party or a proper party to the suit for specific performance.” 7. In view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mumbai International Airport (P) Ltd. (supra), the power to implead a party is to be exercised where such presence is necessary for effectually and completely adjudicating upon the questions involved in the suit, and a person claiming impleadment must demonstrate a direct and legally protectable interest in the subject matter of the litigation; a person whose presence is merely peripheral or whose interest is not the subject matter of adjudication cannot claim impleadment as a matter of right. Applying the aforesaid principle to the facts of the present case, the petitioner has failed to establish any independent right, title or interest in the suit land, nor would any effective decree in the suit become inexecutable or incapable of being passed in his absence. The controversy is between the plaintiffs and the State concerning the validity and consequences of the Patta allegedly 6 granted in favour of the plaintiffs and its subsequent cancellation, for which the State is already a party before the learned trial Court. The mere fact that the proceedings for cancellation of the Patta were initiated pursuant to the complaint made by the petitioner does not confer upon him such legal interest as would make him either a necessary or a proper party to the suit. Consequently, the learned trial Court has committed no jurisdictional error in rejecting the application for impleadment, and the impugned order does not warrant any interference in the exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE Sumit