JUDGMENT

B.K. MISRA, J. : The petitioner being aggrieved with the impugned order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Bhubaneswar in Title Suit No.753 of 2001 dated 17.05.2011 has approached this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying therein to quash the impugned order under Annexure-1 and direct dismissal of the petition filed under Order-1 Rule-10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘C.P.C.’).

2.The present petitioner as plaintiff instituted Title Suit No.753 of 2001 for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit land along with confirmation of possession and for permanent injunction impleading the State of Orissa represented through the Special Secretary, General Administration Department, Director of Estates, General Administration Department, Collector, Khurda and Bhubaneswar Development Authority. In the said suit the opposite party No.1 of this writ petition being represented through its Power of Attorney holder filed an application under Order-1 Rule-10 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. praying therein to be impleaded as a defendant in Title Suit No.753 of 2001 contending therein that the Govt. of Orissa has leased out Ac.3.60 decimals of land i.e., the suit land under Plot No.332/1882 appertaining to Khata No.619 in Unit No.41, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar which stand recorded in the name of General Administration Department, Govt. Orissa, on payment of premium of Rs.90,00,000/- and execution of a Registered Lease Deed. It is the further case of the intervenor petitioner that the suit land has been mutated and the record of right has also been prepared in his name and he is paying land revenue to the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar and therefore he has valid right and substantial interest over the land in question and the suit which has been filed by the plaintiff be heard in his presence which would help the Court in proper adjudication of the case. It is also alleged that the plaintiff deliberately and intentionally did not array him as a party i.e. defendant though he is a necessary party.

3.The prayer of the intervenor petitioner was opposed tooth and nail by the plaintiff on the ground that the allegation that the plaintiff intentionally and with ulterior motive did not implead the intervenor as a party in the suit can hardly be tenable and accepted as admittedly, the intervenor was leased out Ac.3.60 decimals of land pertaining to revenue Plot No.332/1882 under Khata No.619 in Mouza-Chandrasekharpur only in November, 2006 i.e. much after filing of the suit by the plaintiff in the year 2006. It is also the case of the plaintiff that when in the suit the plaintiff has raised the plea of deemed tenancy, for deciding that fact the presence of the intervenor is not necessary and it cannot be construed that the intervenor is a proper or necessary party and therefore the provision of Order-1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. is neither applicable nor Section 151 of the C.P.C. can come to the aid of the intervenor.

4.It is the further case of the plaintiff that when the State is participating in the hearing of the suit, it cannot be said that the defendants are careless or negligent in pursuing the litigation and the Court cannot invoke the discretionary power under Order-22 Rule-10 of the C.P.C. Accordingly, it was prayed that the Order-1 Rule-10 petition of the intervenor is thoroughly misconceived and filed under misconception of law and therefore should be dismissed.

5.Learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Bhubaneswar after hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties, by the impugned order allowed the prayer of the intervenor petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. on the ground that the intervenor petitioner has interest over the suit property as he has purchased the property by paying huge sum of money and the suit property has already been recorded in his name. This impugned order at Annexure-1 i