SANJAY SINGH CHAUHAN vs GIREESH PANDEY

CGHC010436052026
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WP227 No. 1399 of 2026
Sanjay Singh Chauhan S/o R.S. Chauhan Aged About 58 Years R/o- Ward No.-40,
Maharanapratapnagar Bilaspur Jila Bilaspur (C.G.)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - Gireesh Pandey S/o Late Suraj Prasad Pandey Aged About 54 Years R/o- Quarter
No. 01, Niralanagar,raja Hotel Ke Samne, Purana Bus Stand Bilaspur Jila Bilaspur
(C.G.)
2 - Nagar Palik Nigam Dwara Aayukt Nagar Palik Nigam Bilaspur Jila Bilaspur (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
(Cause title is taken from the CIS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioner : Shri Abdul Wahab Khan, Advocate
For Respondents : Shri Pranjal Shukla, Advocate
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
Order on Board
05.11.2026
1. Present is a Writ Petition filed by the petitioner against the impugned
th
order dated 15.05.2026 passed by the learned 9 Civil Judge, Junior Division,
Bilaspur in Civil Suit-A52 of 2026, whereby the application filed by the
petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) has
been rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the petitioner
is neither plaintiff, nor defendant before the learned trial Court but he has filed
application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC for impleading himself as party

Wp227 1399 of 2026
2
defendant in the civil suit. Before the learned trial Court, the respondent-1 filed
a Civil Suit for permanent injunction regarding removal of alleged
encroachment of plaintiff by the defendant Municipal Corporation. The said
cause of action arose in favour of the plaintiff only on a complaint made by the
present petitioner to the Municipal Corporation and when the Corporation is
taking action against the plaintiff, he filed a Civil Suit. The petitioner is an
affected party from the encroachment made by the plaintiff over the subject
land, he filed an application for impleading himself to be a party defendant in
the suit, so that an effective adjudication may be done in the case. The
learned trial Court has rejected the application holding that petitioner is neither
necessary nor proper party in the suit. The impugned order suffers from
illegality and the same is liable to be set aside and the learned trial Court to be
directed to implead him as party defendant in the suit.
3. On the other hand learned counsel for respondent-2 opposes the
submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that
the Municipal Corporation is defending its case in accordance with law and
after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned trial
court has rejected the application filed by the petitioner. He would also submit
that though the petitioner is the complainant and has made a complaint before
the Corporation but in the suit filed by the plaintiff, he is neither necessary nor
the proper party and on that ground alone, his application has been rejected by
the learned trial court, which does not suffers from any illegality, or perversity.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents
annexed with the petition.

Wp227 1399 of 2026
3
5. From perusal of order impugned, it transpires that the plaintiff,
respondent-1, who is prosecuting a Civil Suit for permanent injunction against
the action taken by the respondent-2, Municipal Corporation against removal of
encroachment. It is alleged that the plaintiff’s possession over the subject land
is within his limit and he has not encroached over any part of the road or any
other land. It also transpires that the plaintiffs have submitted that as per the
approved town and country planning map, which was approved in the year
1962-64 he has not encroached any part of the land. It further transpires from
the impugned order that the plaintiff is in possession of 3375 sft of land in
which his house is situated and the Municipal Corporation is taking action
against removal of encroachment, on the ground that without approved map,
his construction is illegal. Since the defendant-Municipal Corporation is
already taking care of his defence before the learned trial Court, even if the
petitioner is the complainant, who made a complaint to the Municipal
Corporation regarding the alleged encroachment, he cannot be said to be
proper or necessary party in the present suit, which has been filed by the
plaintiff for permanent injunction against the Municipal Corporation.
6. In the case of Mumbai International Airport Private Limited v.
Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Private Limited, (2010) 7 SCC 417
it has been observed as under:
“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

Wp227 1399 of 2026
4
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.
…..”
7. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties,
also considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the material
available in the petition, this court finds that there is no jurisdictional error in the
order impugned passed by the learned trial Court rejecting the application of
the petitioner filed under order 1 Rule10 of the CPC.
8. Accordingly, present writ petition fails and it is hereby dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)
JUDGE
padma