The court has the discretion to add parties at any stage of a proceeding under Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C, and the distinction between necessary and proper parties is crucial in determining impleadment.

JUDGMENT :

DR. A.K. RATH, J.

1. This petition challenges the order dated 7.8.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Kendrapara in C.S. No.399 of 2008. By the said order, learned trial court allowed the applications of opposite party nos.2 and 3 under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. for impleadment.

2. The petitioner as plaintiff instituted C.S. No.399 of 2008 for partition and permanent injunction impleading the opposite party no.1 and one Sanatan Das as defendants. While the matter stood thus, opposite party nos.2 and 3 filed separate applications under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. for impleadment. It is stated by opposite party no.2 that he and his brother had purchased a portion of the suit land from Santan Das, defendant no.1 by means of a registered sale deed dtd.9.11.2005. In the meantime, defendant no.1 is dead. He would be adversely affected by the decree. Similar plea has been taken by the opposite party no.3. It is stated that he has purchased the property from the defendant no.1 by means of a registered sale deed dtd.26.6.2009. The plaintiff filed objections separately. The stand of the plaintiff is that when the order of status quo was in operation, the defendant no.1 transferred a portion of the suit land to opposite party no.3. Further a portion of the suit land has been transferred in favour of the interveners without taking prior permission from the consolidation authorities and as such both the sale deeds are void ab initio.

3. Learned trial court came to hold that this is not the stage to decide the validity of the sale deeds. It further held that the defendant no.1 alienated a portion of the suit land in favour of opposite party no.2 and another by means of a registered sale deed dated 9.11.2005 much prior to the institution of the suit. It further held that the opposite party no.3 is a lis pendens purchaser. Relying on the decision of the apex Court in the case of Dhanalakshmi and others vs. P Mohan and others, AIR 2007 SC 1062, it held that after death of defendant no.1, nobody is there to protect the interest of the transferee. In the event the plaintiff and defendant no.2 will join together, the interveners cannot protect their right. Held so, learned trial court allowed the applications.

4. Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the opposite party nos.2 and 3 are not necessary or proper parties. He further submitted that the sale deed on which reliance placed by the opposite party nos.2 and 3 are void ab initio in view of the bar contending Sec.34 of the O.C.H. and P.F.L. Act. The Collector in exercise of power under Sec.35 of the said Act has passed order nullifying the sale deeds. He further submitted that lis pendens purchaser is bound by the decree. The plaintiff is the dominus litis. The plaintiff cannot be compelled to implead the person against whom he does not seek any relief. He relies on the decisions of the apex Court in the case of Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Additional Member Board of Revenue, Bihar and another, AIR 1963 SC 786, Bibi Zubaida Khatoon vs. Nabi Hassan Saheb and another, AIR 2004 SC 173, Kasturi vs. Iyyamperumal and others, (2005) 6 SCC 733, Mumbai International Airport Private Limited vs. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Private Limited and others, (2010) 7 SCC 417.

5. Per contra, Mr. Pattanaik, learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 and 3 submitted that the opposite parties have purchased the land from Sanatan Das. After death of Sanatan, they filed the application. Learned trial court has rightly allowed the same.

6. Really two points arise for consideration of this Court;

(1) Whether the court can implead a party as defendant against the wish of the plaintiff?

(2) Whether the interveners are necessary or property parties to the suit?

Point No.1

7. In Mumbai International Airport Private Limited (supra), the apex Court held thus:-

“xxx xxx xxx

The general rule in regard to impleadment of parties is that the plaintiff in a suit, being dominus litis, ma