Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
P.C. Naik, A. Pasayat, JJ.
GOPAL KRUSHNA BADU MOHAPATRA AND OTHERS - APPELLANT
Versus
GIRISH CHANDRA NAYAK AND OTHERS - RESPONDENT
O.J.C. No. 2205 of 1996
Decided On : 05-03-1999
ORDER 1 RULE 10 CPC - IMPLEADING PARTIES - SCOPE AND AMBIT - NECESSARY AND PROPER PARTIES - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners sought to be impleaded as defendants in a suit for eviction, claiming interest in the property based on a will executed by the original defendant. The trial court and the appellate court rejected their application.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioners had a prima facie interest in the subject matter of the litigation and that their presence was necessary for a complete and final decision on the questions involved in the suit. It directed that the petitioners be impleaded as defendants.
Issues: Whether the petitioners were necessary or proper parties to the suit and whether their impleading was necessary for the effective and complete adjudication of the dispute.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and held that a person can be impleaded as a party if they are a necessary party or if their presence is necessary to decide the disputes between the parties to the suit. The court also held that the discretion of the court in directing impletion of a party should be exercised in a reasonable manner and that the court must be prima facie satisfied about the bona fides of the applicant, the plausibility of their claims, and the genuineness of their interest in the litigation.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and directed that the petitioners be impleaded as defendants in the suit. It also directed the trial court to complete the proceedings within four months.
JUDGMENT :
A. Pasayat, J. - Petitioners' application for being impleaded as parties in O.S.No. 90/211 of 1985/1977 in terms of Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1 908 (in short, the 'Code') having been rejected by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Puri and such rejection having been upheld by learned District Judge, Puri in Civil Revision No. 144 of 1995, this writ application has been filed.
2. A brief reference to the factual aspects would be necessary. One Sanjay Narayan Sanyal filed O.S.No. 211/1997 against Radheshyam Badu Mohapatra for eviction on the ground that he had been appointed as marfatdar by the descendants of Rani Hemanta Kumari Devi, who had constructed the temple and as such was permitted to stay within the temple premises. One Jayakrushna Badu Mohapatra filed petition stating that the property had been gifted to him by Rani under a 'Danapatra' dated 4.1.1 933 and prayed for being impleaded as a party, which was allowed. The suit was transferred to the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Puri and was renumbered as O.S.No. 90/21 1 of 1985-1 977. Girish Chandra Nayak and Kailash Chandra Nayak, opp. parties ) and 2 in the present writ application substituted themselves as plaintiffs in place of original plaintiff on the ground that original plaintiff executed a 'Seva Samarpana Patra' on 27.8.1981 in their favour making them marfatdars of the deity. Petitioners on the basis of a will executed by Jayakrushna Badu Mohapatra in their favour filed an application to be impleaded as defendants. The said petition was rejected on 27.7.1983, on the ground that Jayakrushna Badu Mohapatra continued to be a party to the suit and could protect the interest of petitioners. Another application was filed by petitioners which was rejected on 8.2.1985 on the ground that a will does not confer any title. Progress of the suit was stayed because of the proceeding under Orissa Estates Abolition Act, (in short, the 'Act') and the land was settled in favour of the deity. After death of Jayakrushna Badu Mohapatra, petitioners put the will to probate, and Probate Case No. 1 16/1986 was initiated. Further proceeding in Probate Case has been stayed by this Court in Civil Revision No. 49 of 1995. In the meantime according to petitioners 'Seva Samarpana Patra' on the basis of which plaintiffs (opp. parties 1 and 2 herein) claimed to be marfatdars was cancelled by a registered deed dated 18.7.1993, and another 'Seva Samarpana Patra' was executed by Sanjaya Narayan Sanyal in their favour under a registered deed dated 29.1 1.1993. On the basis of these two deeds petitioners filed an application to be impleaded as parties, but the same was rejected by the trial Court. Civil Revision No. 144 of 1995 was filed which has also been rejected.
3. According to petitioners their prayer has been improperly rejected, and true scope and ambit of Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code has not been kept in view. According to learned counsel for opp. parties 1 and 2, sole object for which application has been filed is to delay the proceeding. Petitioners are neither necessary nor proper parties to the suit and therefore, order of rejection does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference. According to them, evidence of parties was closed and the suit was posted to 25.7.1985 for argument. At that stage, prayer was made to stay the proceeding by indicating pendency of OEA Lease Appeal No. 7 of 1985 which was pending before S.D.O., Pun. On 30.7.1985 learned Addl. Subordinate Judge, Puri (as the Court was then designated) stayed hearing of part heard argument. OEA Lease Appeal No. 7 of 1985 was disposed of by remanding the matter for fresh adjudication. Being aggrieved by such order, opposite parties 1 and 2 filed OJC No. 4038 of 1988 before this Court. By order dated 27.7.1992 this Court set aside order passed in OEA Appeal No. 7 of 1988. On 5.12.1995 stay order was vacated in terms of order passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ appl
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
