JUDGMENT

L. MOHAPATRA, J. — This writ application is directed against the order dated 8.7.2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bonai in Title Suit No.10 of 2001 allowing the application filed by the opposite party No.1 under Order 1, Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. for being impleaded as party to the suit, as well as the judgment and order dated 11.2.2003 of the learned District Judge, Sundargarh in Civil Revision Petition No.1 of 2002 confirming the order passed by the learned Civil Judge.

2. This Court by order dated 10.4.2003 had issued notice of admission. Though the matter was listed for admission, on consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same was taken up for hearing.

3. The plaintiff-petitioner filed the suit praying for a declaration that the order dated 10.6.1998 passed by the defend¬ant No.1 is null and void and for permanently restraining the defendants from taking any action without following the due process of law. From the record it further appears that the plaintiff is a Union which represents employees of the defendant No.2-company. It further appears that the said company was doing well till 31.3.1996 but suddenly reported loss in the year 1997-98 and the said loss increased from year to year subsequently, as a result of which the industry became sick. According to the plaintiff purposefully the management changed the depreciation method from straight loss to run down in the year 1997-98 with retrospective effect in order to allow the industry to become sick. After the industry became sick a reference was made to the Board for Industrial & Financial Reconstruction (Defendant No.1) and the said Board declaring the company to be sick company in terms of the provisions of Sick Industries Companies (Special Provision) Act, 1958 (SICA) appointed one Arun Sinha as its special Director to safeguard the financial and other interest of the company and also appointed the Intervener-opposite party No.1 as the operating agency under Section 17(3) of the SICA to examine the viability and to submit its report for revival of the unit by order dated 10.6.1998. This decision of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction is sought to be declared null and void in the suit. When the matter stood thus the inter¬vener-opposite party No.1 filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the C.P.C. to be impleaded as a party to the suit. Said petition was resisted by the plaintiff-petitioner. Learned Civil Judge on consideration of the materials placed before him held that the opposite-party No.1 is a necessary party to the suit and accordingly allowed the application. Challenging the said order the plaintiff-petitioner filed Civil Revision Petition No.1 of 2002 before the learned District Judge, Sundargarh and the said revi¬sion petition having been dismissed by order dated 11.2.2003, the present writ application has been filed.

4. Shri Sanjit Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the intervener-opposite party No.1 is neither a necessary party nor a proper party to the suit. This submission was made with reference to certain documents annexed to the writ application which also form part of the re¬cord. Learned counsel Sri B. Mohanty appearing for the interven¬er-opposite party No.1 supported the order passed by both the Courts below on the ground that the intervener-opposite party No.1 is not only an Investor but also participated in the proceed¬ing before the defendant No.1 and therefore in absence of the said intervener no effective decree can be passed. Shri Govind Das, learned senior counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2 submitted that if the intervention is allowed only on the ground that the intervener-opposite party No.1 had invested in the company then it will be open a flood-gate for all the creditors/investors/Sundry creditors to approach the Court to be impleaded as parties.

5. In order to find out as to whether intervener-