The High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 21-Aug-2024 17:21:24 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP NO.835 OF 2024 Om Shree Shree Tarak Brahma Hanuman Temple Committee (Mandir Trust), Mahatab Road, Rourkela …. Petitioner Mr. Biswa Prakash Dhal, Advocate -versus- The Secretary, Rourkela Development Authority, Rourkela and others …. Opp. Parties CORAM:
Decision
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA ORDER 20.08.2024 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Order dated 22nd January, 2024 (Annexure-7) passed in Civil Suit No.20 of 2012 is under challenge in this CMP, whereby learned Civil Judge, Rourkela allowed an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC filed by the Intervener-Opposite Party No.5. 3. Mr. Dhal, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the suit has been filed by the Plaintiff-Petitioner for declaration of right, title and interest against Steel Authority of India Limited, Rourkela Steel Plant, Rourkela and Rourkela Development Authority (RDA). The Plaintiff does not claim any relief against Intervener-Opposite Party No.5 in the plaint. The land in question is a part and parcel of Plot No.1504 (P) under Khata No.627 situated in mouza Rourkela in Town Unit No.35 in the district of Sundargarh. The land is bounded by RDA building in the east, plant side Jhupuri Basti in the west, RDA Building in the North and Mahatab Road on the South. When the suit was so pending, the Opposite Party No.5 filed an application for intervention to be impleaded as a party to the suit stating that the land in question was allotted in his favour by the RDA. No document was filed Page 1 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 21-Aug-2024 17:21:24 along with the petition under Order I Rule 10 CPC (Annexure-5). However, during adjudication of the petition, Opposite Party No.5 filed a copy of the allotment order dated 18th July, 2004 allotting the land in his favour. Considering the same, learned trial Court allowed the application without appreciating any objection raised by the Plaintiff-Petitioner. It is his submission that in the case of Sudhamayee Pattnaik and others vrs. Bibhu Prasad Sahoo and others, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1234, Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the Plaintiff, being the dominus litis, cannot be compelled to litigate with a person against whom he does not claim any relief. Of course, learned trial Court, for just adjudication of the suit, may exercise the power for impletion of parties to the suit suo motu. Non-impletion of a party is at the risk of the Plaintiff. In view of such settled position, the Petitioner filed by the intervener after 12 years of filing of the suit should not have been entertained. Learned trial Court without considering the aforesaid principle, allowed the application. Hence, this CMP has been filed. 4. It is further submitted that the Plaintiff had filed an application to implead a person who has filed a petition under OSATIP Regulation against the Petitioner in respect of the self same land. Such application was dismissed by learned trial Court. Assailing the same, the Plaintiff has filed CMP No.903 of 2016. This Court while issuing notice in the CMP, was pleased to stay further proceeding of the present suit. Applying the ratio of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. and another -v- Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2018) 16 SCC 299, learned trial Court subsequently vacated the interim order and proceeded Page 2 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 21-Aug-2024 17:21:24 with the suit. It is at this stage, the intervention was filed, which has been allowed. Hence, the impugned order is not sustainable. 5. Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the Petitioner and on perusal of record, this Court finds that Intervener-Opposite Party No.5 filed an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC to be impleaded as a party to the suit stating that the land in question has been allotted in his favour by RDA. He also, in course of adjudication of the petition, filed a copy of the allotment order dated 18th June, 2024. Considering the same, learned trial Court allotted the application vide order dated 22nd January, 2024. This CMP has been filed after a lapse of six months, i.e., 26th July, 2024 of the impugned order explaining that the Petitioner was not intimated by his counsel about the impugned order immediately. When Opposite Party No.5 declared in the locality that the suit has been dismissed at his instance, he inquired the matter and came to know about the impugned order and filed this CMP. Such explanation is not acceptable. Although it is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that the land in question was a huge patch of land and the Petitioner is claiming declaration of right, title and interest in respect of a negligible portion, but on perusal of the materials on record, this Court finds that the description of the suit land in the plaint as well as in the petition under Annexure-5 appears to be similar. 6. Learned trial Court, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, felt it proper that the presence of Opposite Party No.5 is necessary for proper adjudication of the suit. Page 3 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 21-Aug-2024 17:21:24 7. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere with the same. 8. Accordingly, this CMP is disposed of with an observation that since the suit is of the year 2012, learned trial Court should make every possible endeavour to see that it is disposed of at an early date giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. 9. No liberal/unnecessary adjournment shall be granted to any of the parties to the suit. 10. If any of the parties to the suit does not cooperate for its early disposal, learned trial Court may take coercive measure in accordance with law. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. Rojalin (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge Page 4 of 4