A plaintiff in a civil suit is the dominus litis and cannot be compelled to implead parties against their will unless their involvement is necessary for just adjudication.

JUDGMENT :

Sashikanta Mishra, J.

1. In this application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner, who is the Plaintiff in C.S. No.496/2021 pending in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Baripada, seeks to challenge the order dtd.17.8.2022 passed by the said Court allowing the application filed by the present Opp. Party Nos.1 to 5 for being impleaded as Defendants under Order I Rule 10 of C.P.C.

2. The facts of the case, relevant only for deciding the present application are that the Petitioner, as Plaintiff has filed the above suit seeking the following relief;

“(a) Let a decree for permanent injunction be passed against the defendants directing them not to come over the suit land.

(b) A decree for compensation of Rs.30,000/- be passed against the defendants in favour of the plaintiff and the same may be realized from the defendants through the process of court.

(c) That the cost of the suit be decreed.

(d) Any other relief or relives to which the plaintiff is entitled in law and equity be also decreed.”

3. Her case is that she had purchased the suit property from one Narana Prasad Sahu, the recorded owner vide RSD dated 21.5.2019 and entered into possession. The suit land was originally agricultural land which was converted to Gharabari (Homestead) vide O.L.R. Case No.196/2020. The land was also mutated in her favour and R.O.R. was published. The proforma Opp.Party-defendants disturbed her possession by uprooting the boundary cement pillars which the Petitioner discovered on 25.8.2021. Again, on 01.9.2021 when the Petitioner and her husband tried to construct boundary wall, the said defendants obstructed them. The Petitioner approached the Police Station, but no action was taken as the dispute was civil in nature. Hence, the suit.

4. The contesting Defendants (Proforma Opp.Party Nos. 6 to 9) filed a joint written statement, inter alia, taking the plea that as per C.S. R.O.R., the suit land was of jungle kisam and communal in nature for which no private individual like the Petitioner can get the same recorded in his/her favour. The villagers of Jamunia, Ambagadia, Purunia as well as the defendants have communal interest over the land which is being used as a public road, playground, grazing field etc.

5. At this stage, the third-party interveners (present Opp.Party Nos.1 to 5) filed application under Order I Rule 10 of C.P.C. for being impleaded as parties to the suit. They also pleaded that the suit was of jungle kisam and communal in nature which cannot be recorded in the name of any private individual. It was also stated that the villagers have communal interest over the property. The Plaintiff filed objection to the petition. By the order impugned, the petition was allowed and the said third party interveners were permitted to be impleaded as defendants.

6. Heard Mr. Anupam Dash, learned counsel for the Plaintiff-Petitioner and Mr. P.K.Satapathy, learned counsel for the Defendants-Opp. Parties.

7. Mr. Dash would argue that in a suit, the plaintiff is dominus litis having right to choose his adversaries against whom he seeks relief. He cannot be forced to implead someone as defendant against his wish. The Court below has not given any reason for allowing the petition except to avoid future litigation, which is not a valid reason for allowing the petition for impleadment. Mr. Dash further argues that even otherwise, it can be seen from the petition filed under Order I Rule 10 of C.P.C. that the same is nothing but a verbatim copy of the stand taken by the original defendant