A necessary party with a direct interest in property may be added to ensure effective adjudication, according to Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC.

JUDGMENT :

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

1. The Petitioner is the plaintiff in C.S. No.12/2013 of the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Athmallik, who questions the correctness of order dated 03.1.2024 passed by the said Court in allowing an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C. to add a party not originally impleaded.

2. Briefly stated, the suit is one filed by the plaintiff for partition of the Schedule-A properties besides declaration of certain sale deeds as void and declaration of title in respect of B Schedule property along with permanent injunction and recovery of possession etc. Most of the defendants entered appearance and some of them filed their written statements. The present Opposite Party No.1, who was not a party to the suit appeared and filed an application for his impletion as a party under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C. It was claimed that he is the grandson of late Malati Mahar, recorded tenant of the land in question on the strength of a registered will executed by her. Malati was the wife of late Raghumani Mahar, who was one of the co-parceners and recorded tenant of his ancestral property and as per the will, he claimed share in the suit property. Besides, Opposite Party No.1 also claimed that the compromise decree passed in an earlier suit being T.S. No.3/1989 had no effect on the suit. Since Malati had not got her legitimate share and the compromise was effected fraudulently under pressure of defendant-Prasanna Mahar, the compromise decree is not binding on the Petitioner.

3. The plaintiff filed objection stating that Malati had earlier filed a suit being T.S. No.3/1989 against the father of the plaintiff and Defendant No.1 and predecessor-in-interest of other defendants claiming her share in the joint family property. The suit was compromised and final decree was drawn up on 26.11.1990 allotting Schedule B property of that suit in her favour. As such, the property no longer remained ancestral or joint. The intervenor is bound by the compromise and he has already mutated the property received under the compromise. The intervenor therefore, has no right over the suit property.

4. After hearing both sides and on consideration of the rival contentions, the trial Court observed that the plaintiff does not deny that the intervenor is a successor of late Malati Mahar. After perusing the pleadings and final decree of the previous suit, the trial Court further found that out of the three schedules of properties involved in the said suit, only ‘B’ Schedule property was allotted to Malati and there was no mention as regards the rest of the property, which not being partitioned was the subject matter of the present suit. The trial Court was thus of the view that whether the intervenor has entitlement or not can only be decided through trial, but not allowing him to contest will deprive him from right of hearing. His presence was also held to be helpful in effective adjudication of the suit. The application was thus allowed by order dated 3.10.2024, which is impugned.

5. Heard Mr. B.P.B. Bahali, learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant, Mr. T.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the Opp.Party No.1 and Mr. S.K. Mishra, learned Senior counsel with Miss P.S. Mohanty for the other Opp.Party-defendants.

6. Mr. Bahali would argue that the compromise decree passed in T.S. No.3/1989 has already been acted upon. On the other hand, the so-called Will relied upon by the Opp.Party No.1 was not probated. Nevertheless, he applied for mutation and ROR was published in his favour. As such, Malati’s property is separated from the suit property over which she has no right, title and interest. Under such circumstances, Opposite Party No.1 cannot be treated as a necessary party to the suit. The finding of the tr