The main legal point established is that an application for intervention under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. should be allowed if it avoids multiplicity of proceedings and if the intervenor has a genuine and bona fide interest in the subject matter of the litigation.

JUDGMENT :

Indrajit Mahanty, J. - In the present writ application the Petitioner namely Binod Bihari Singh has sought to challenge an Order Dated 5.1.2007 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), First Cuttack, Cuttack in C.S. No. 37 of 2005 rejecting his application for intervention under Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C.

2. Civil Suit No. 37 of 2005 has been filed by Opp. Party No. 1- Cuttack Madhu Baisya Bhadraki Gudia Samiti, wherein prayer has been made for eviction of the Defendants (tenants) from the suit schedule property namely, Indumati Rath and Sanjaya Rath who were Defendants 1 & 2. It is further stated that Indumati Rath has in the meanwhile passed away leaving behind her adopted son, Sanjaya Rath (Defendant No. 2) as her only legal heir/successor.

3. The intervener-Petitioner claims that he is a close friend of Defendant No. 2 and was closely associated with Defendant No. 1 (since deceased). Since Defendant No. 2 was residing at Bhubaneswar and Defendant No. 1 was residing at Cuttack, the Petitioner who lives at Cuttack claims to have come forward and treated Defendant No. 1 as his mother and claims that Defendant No. 1 treated the Petitioner like her son, and therefore claims to have become close to the deceased Defendant No. 1 even more than her adopted son (Defendant No. 2). It is further claimed by the Petitioner that during the pendency of the suit, since Defendant No. 1 was not in a position to look after the day to day affairs of the litigation, the said Defendant No. 1 (since deceased) on 11.1.2006 executed an agreement assigning all her powers to the present intervenor-Petitioner for execution and registration of sale deed in his favour by paying the balance consideration money to the Plaintiff. In the said agreement it is claimed that Defendant No. 1 also confirmed the possession of the intervenor-Petitioner, over the suit land and further declared that the Defendant No. 2 cannot claim any right, title, and interest over the suit land. It is contended that on 3.5.2006 Defendant No. 1 expired at the age of 86 due to prolonged illness and since her death Defendant No. 1, the present Petitioner claims to be in peaceful possession of the property on the strength of the deed of agreement in his favour dated 11.1.2006.

4. In the light of the aforesaid circumstances, the Petitioner filed application under Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C. on 1.9.2006, seeking intervention in the pending suit. It appears that the Plaintiff filed objections & Defendant No. 2 also filed objections and the Learned Civil Judge on consideration of the same vide Order Dated 5.1.2007 rejected the petition as not maintainable either in law or in facts on record (Annexure 3).

5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Trial Court failed to take into consideration the true scope and ambit of Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C. It is stated that while the object of Order 1, Rule 10. C.P.C. was not to allow any change in the scope and character of the suit by adding new parties, but if such intervention would avoid litigation which might otherwise become necessary the same should have been allowed. It is stated that the question involved in the suit since the right, title and interest over the suit property is to be decided, therefore, for a complete final decision of the matter, the intervention should have been allowed, failing which the same would lead to multiplicity of proceedings. In this respect the Petitioner placed reliance upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Custodian of Branches of Banco National Ultramarino Vs. Nalini Bai Naique, and Judgment of this Court in Gopal Krushna Badu Mohapatra and Others Vs. Girish Chandra Nayak and Others, .

In the Judgment of the Custodian of Branches of BANCO National Ultramarino (supra), Their Lordships dealt with the term "legal representative" found in Order 22 Rules 4 & 9 C.P.C.The said Judgment is not a Judgment on the issue at hand, i.e. interpretation of Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. which r