The High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 14-Nov-2024 12:36:23 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 27571 OF 2011 (An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India) Hetu Rana ***** …… Petitioner -Versus- Satyanand Rana and others .…… Opp. Parties Advocates appeared:
Legal Reasoning
For Petitioner : Mr. S.P. Patra, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. Manas Chand, Advocate (For Opp. Party No.1) CORAM : MR. JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
Decision
------------------------------------------------ Heard and disposed of on 12.11.2024 ---------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Order dated 16th September, 2011 (Annexure-3) passed in C.S. No.142 of 2007 is under challenge in this writ petition, whereby learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Titilagarh allowed an application filed by the Plaintiff-Opposite Party No.1 under Order I Rule 10 CPC. 3. Mr. Patra, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the suit has been filed by the Plaintiff-Opposite Party No.1 for declaration of right, title, interest and confirmation of possession as well as for permanent injunction against the present Petitioner-Defendant No.1. The Petitioner purchased the suit W.P.(C) No. 27571 OF 2011 Page 1 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 14-Nov-2024 12:36:23 // 2 // property from the co-Defendants. In order to create hindrance in the possession of the Petitioner, the suit has been filed. After closure of the evidence from both the sides, when the suit was posted for argument, an application was filed by the Plaintiff- Opposite Party No.1 under Order I Rule 10 CPC to implead the parties stating them to be the legal heirs of late Suvaban Rana, the common ancestor. It is alleged that without taking consent of all the legal heirs of the common ancestor, namely, Suvaban Rana, the land has been alienated in favour of the Petitioner. Learned trial Court without considering the objection raised by the Petitioner and that the suit is at the stage of argument, allowed such application. Hence, this writ petition has been filed assailing the said order. 4. It is submitted that learned trial Court took note of certain facts, which were not there in the petition under Order I Rule 10 CPC. Learned trial Court by virtue of the impugned order impliedly treated the persons sought to be impleaded as parties as the legal heirs late Suvaban Rana, common ancestor. It is further submitted that in the written statement, the Defendant has specifically stated about non-joinder of necessary parties. But, no step was taken by the Plaintiff to implead them before commencement of trial. No explanation has been given in the petition under Order I Rule 10 CPC as to why such an application should be entertained at a belated stage. Hence, he prays for setting aside the impugned order under Annexure-3 and to direct learned trial Court to dispose of the suit at an early date. W.P.(C) No. 27571 OF 2011 Page 2 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 14-Nov-2024 12:36:23 // 3 // 5. Mr. Chand, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.1 vehemently objects to the above. It is his submission that in the petition under Order I Rule 10 CPC (Annexure-1), it is categorically stated that the parties sought to be impleaded as Defendants are the legal heirs of late Suvaban Rana. The said averment was not specifically denied by the Defendant- Petitioner in this objection. Further, it is stated in the petition that it could not be filed earlier as learned counsel, who was appearing for the Plaintiff did not advise him so before commencement of trial. Leaned Advocate, who was conducting the case on behalf of the Plaintiff-Opposite Party No.1 died during pendency of the suit, for which the Plaintiff engaged a another counsel and on his advice only, the petition under Order I Rule 10 CPC was filed. Learned trial Court discussing the materials in detail has passed the impugned order under Annexure-3. The parties directed to be impleaded as Defendants are necessary parties for proper adjudication of the suit. Hence, the impugned order suffers no infirmity. As such, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that the Plaintiff-Opposite Party No.1 in the petition under Order I Rule 10 CPC had categorically stated that the objection with regard to non-impletion of parties was stated in the written statement. Thus, the Plaintiff-Opposite Party No.1 had knowledge of such objection prior to commencement of trial. There is no material on record as to how the newly added Defendants are related to W.P.(C) No. 27571 OF 2011 Page 3 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 14-Nov-2024 12:36:23 // 4 // late Suvaban Rana and their consent was necessary for executing a sale deed in favour of the Defendant-Petitioner. 7. It is stated that the petition under Order I Rule 10 CPC was filed when the suit was posted for argument. The ground taken by the Plaintiff-Opposite Party No.1 not to file the petition before commencement of trial is not acceptable. The suit is of the year, 2007 and the parties have already led their evidence on the basis of their respective pleadings. Thus, at this stage, if the newly added Defendants are allowed to contest the suit, it will lead to a de novo trial. When the Plaintiff-opposite Party No.1 has not provided good reasons for not filing the petition under Order I Rule 10 CPC before commencement of trial, this Court is of the considered opinion that such an application should not have been entertained at a belated stage that too when the suit is posted for argument. In that view of the matter, this Court has no hesitation to set aside the impugned order under Annexure-3. 8. Accordingly, the impugned order under Annexure-3 is set aside and learned trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit, i.e., C.S. No.142 of 2007 in accordance with law at an early date, if it is not disposed of in the meantime. 9. Interim order dated 29th November, 2011 passed in Misc. Case No.15822 of 2011 stands vacated. Urgent certified copy of this judgment be granted on proper application. (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated 12th November, 2024/Madhusmita W.P.(C) No. 27571 OF 2011 Page 4 of 4