Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
B.P. ROUTRAY
Labanyabati Behera – Appellant
Versus
Lingaraj Senapati – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners' application context and status (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments on necessity of petitioners' presence (Para 4 , 8) |
| 3. principles of impleading necessary parties (Para 5 , 10) |
| 4. court's discretionary power in party impleadment (Para 6 , 11) |
| 5. order dismissal and confirmation of trial court's decision (Para 12) |
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. M.K. Dash, learned Advocate for the Petitioners and Mr. S.P. Satapathy, learned Advocate for Opposite Parties 1 to 3.
3. Present Opposite Parties 1 to 3 being the Plaintiffs filed the suit against present Opposite Parties 4 to 6 praying for permanent injunction simplicitor. For better appreciation the prayer made in the plaint is re-produced below:-
b. Cost of the suit be decreed c. And /or any other relief(s) may be passed as deemed fit and proper by this Hon'ble court in the interest of justice.”
5. It is settled that the Plaintiff is the masters of the suit and he is the dominus litis. The provisions under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. authorizes the court to add any party to the suit at any stage of the proceeding whose presence is found necessary in order to enable the court to effectively and completely adjudicate the issues involved.
“1
In a suit for permanent injunction, parties can only be added if they are necessary for adjudication; plaintiffs hold the discretion to determine who is included without compulsion to add parties not....
A party cannot be impleaded in an ongoing suit against the wishes of the plaintiff unless they are deemed a necessary or proper party under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the addition of a party in a suit should be consistent with the scope of the inquiry necessitated in the pending suit, and the presence of the....
The court emphasized that necessary and proper parties must be included for effective adjudication, and the trial court erred in denying the petitioners' impleadment.
The court emphasized that a necessary or proper party can only be added if it is essential for effective adjudication and not against the wishes of the dominus litis principle.
The court held that parties whose presence is necessary for effective adjudication must be impleaded, affirming that the discretion to add such parties lies with the court to avoid multiplicity of su....
The presence of a party whose presence is necessary to determine the real issue in controversy should be permitted in a civil suit. A suit for injunction can include parties whose presence would enab....
A transferee pendente lite is entitled to be impleaded in a suit to protect their interest, and the trial court erred in dismissing the application for impleadment.
Implead of party - Suit for permanent injunction against the Government and when admittedly the property belongs to the Government the presence of the petitioner who claims to have purchased the said....
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
