Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
SASHIKANTA MISHRA
Sabita Sahu – Appellant
Versus
Nishakar Singh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts of the case and claims of the petitioner. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. defendants' arguments regarding communal land ownership. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. parties' arguments concerning impleadment of defendants. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. court's analysis on necessity of parties for adjudication. (Para 9 , 10 , 12) |
| 5. judgment on implications of the impleadment order. (Para 11 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. final conclusion and order of the court. (Para 15) |
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
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.
The court clarified the criteria for necessary parties under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, emphasizing that a party's independent claim does not warrant inclusion in a suit if it do....
Intervention application – Being masters of their lis, petitioners cannot be made to contest or fight against an opponent who, in eyes of plaintiffs, has no concern with suit land and has not been ca....
The court affirmed that a plaintiff's right to join parties (dominus litis) is subject to judicial discretion, and a proposed party must be necessary for a complete adjudication of the suit.
The High Court's supervisory powers under Article 227 are limited to ensuring subordinate courts act within their authority, and it cannot interfere without evidence of jurisdictional abuse.
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.
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....
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
