ORDER :

1. This writ petition has been brought under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking indulgence of this Court to quash the impugned order dated 04.01.2021 passed by the court of Civil Judge Class-I, Kunkuri, District- Jashpur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 25A/2015.

2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, that the original plaintiff- Ignesh Lakda (Decease) has filed application for declaration of title and permanent injunction with respect to the land bearing Khasra No. 241/1 admeasuring 1.173 Hectare, situated at Village- Kunkuri, District-Jashpur against Margret Tete, who is respondent No. 9 in this writ petition. Respondent No. 1 to 8 are legal representatives of the deceased/ plaintiff. The petitioner is claiming to be the owner of the suit property, on the ground that the suit property is part of the land bearing Khasra No. 241/2, on which, the petitioner has title and on this basis, prayer was made in application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. to implead the petitioner as party in the civil suit. This application has been dismissed by the impugned order.

3. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has valid ground to be impleaded as party for having common interest on the suit property. The relief that has been sought by the plaintiffs in that case regarding declaration of title over the suit property, shall have direct effect on the interest of the present petitioner. However, the defendant/ respondent No. 1 has pleaded in her written statement that her husband was placed in possession over the disputed property by the present petitioner, therefore, the petitioner was a necessary party.

4. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Panne Khushali Vs. Jeewanlal Mathoo Khatik, reported in 1976 MPLJ 170, in which, it has been determined as to who shall be necessary party in a civil suit. The case of the petitioner is covered by this decision. It is submitted that in Gurmit Singh Bhatia Vs. Kiran Kant Robinson & others, reported in 2019 SCC OnLine 912, it has been held by the Supreme Court that the party proposed to be added has direct and legal interest in the controversy involved in the suit, is a necessary party. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hari Mohan Sharma & another Vs. Charanjeet Singh Rekhi & others, reported in (2019) 12 SCC 412 & Kanaklata Das & others Vs. Naba Kumar Das & others, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 352.

5. The demarcation report of 22.05.2006 mentions that the petitioner is in illegal possession on the part of Khasra No. 241/1 admeasuring 0.740 Hectare and it is the pleading of the defendant/ respondent No. 9, that her husband was placed in possession of the disputed property by the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner is necessary party.

6. Considered on the submissions. It is pleaded in the plaint that the defendant/ respondent No. 1 has been found in illegal possession of 0.050 Hectare of land, which is part of Khasra No. 241/1. After series of litigations, between respondent No. 9 and the plaintiff, the order has been passed in favour of the plaintiff by the Board of Revenue. Subsequent to that, in another demarcation, it has been reported that the petitioner is in illegal possession of 0.740 Hectare of land of Khasra No. 241/1, which was challenged before the revenue court in which, the plaintiff has succeeded. It is thus found mentioned in the plaint itself that the petitioner also had been asserting claim on the suit property and there is pleading of the defendant that the possession of the suit property was obtained by her from the petitioner.

7. In case of Panne Khushali (Supra), the Full Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court has held in paragraph 7, which is as under:-

“7. For determining the question who is a necessary party, there are no tests enumerated in the forequoted Order 1, Rule 10. The question has to be determined in each case on its own facts, bearing