A party can be added or transposed in an appeal under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC if it is necessary to protect their substantial rights, ensuring effective adjudication without causing harm to existing parties.

JUDGMENT :

B.P. Routray, J.

1. Heard Mr. A.P. Bose, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, Mr. T.K. Dash, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State- Opposite Parties 1 to 3 and Mr. Soumya Mishra, learned counsel for Opposite Parties 4 to 12.

2. Respondent No.11, who is the LR of original Respondent No.9, filed a petition before the first appellate court invoking the provisions under Order 1 Rule 10, C.P.C. with a prayer to add him as one of the Appellants along with the existing Appellants. Said prayer of Respondent No.11 having been rejected vide the impugned order dated 07.03.2025 (Annexure-1) by the learned Additional District Judge, Champua in RFA No.335/139/66 of 1983-2022, the same is the subject matter of challenge in present C.M.P.

3. Original Respondent No.1 (now deceased) before the first appellate court, filed the suit praying for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit property along with the prayer to restrain the State-Opposite Parties from proceeding in the certificate cases initiated against his vendor pursuant to the auction sale made by the court. The vendor of the original Plaintiff was the owner of the suit property which was put to auction sale on 28^th June 1974. The original Respondent No.9 was the auction purchaser. The suit was decreed in favour of the Plaintiffs, which was challenged in RFA No.335/139/66 of 1983-2022 before the first appellate court by the State-Defendants. When the State has preferred the first appeal, admittedly Respondent No.9 did not choose to file any appeal against the decree of the learned trial court despite the fact that he was arrayed as Respondent No.9 in the first appeal.

4. When the first appeal was ripe for hearing, at such belated stage, the petition dated 13^th February 2025 was filed by the substituted Respondent No.11, who is the son of the auction purchaser and was impleaded in the appeal after death of the original purchaser, to transpose him as one of the Appellants in exercise of power under Order 1 Rule 10, C.P.C.

5. Learned first appellate court having considered the prayer of Respondent No.11 and the objections raised by the Appellants as well as other Respondents rejected such prayer of Respondent No.11 mainly on the ground that the present State-Appellants are taking enough interest to protect the auction purchaser also and no such circumstances has been demonstrated before the court that the Appellants are not properly prosecuting the appeal. The learned first appellate court has further held that, it is open for Respondent No.11 to argue and place his grounds in support of the Appellants stand.

6. Mr. A.P. Bose, learned counsel for the Petitioner (Respondent No.11) submits that, after his substitution in the appeal, he by observing the circumstances and the conduct of State-Appellants, particularly not showing interest to substitute him as the LR of original Respondent No.9 and the conduct of the State-Appellants before the revenue court for setting aside the illegal recording of name of the Plaintiffs in revenue records, is compelled to proceed with the prayer to add him as one of the Appellants in order to protect his right as the State-Appellants are found lacking in prosecuting the appeal properly.

7. Conversely, Mr. Soumya Mishra, learned counsel for the other Respondents in the appeal, who are LRs of the original Plaintiff, submits that there is at all no necessity on the part of Respondent No.11 to contest the appeal as one of the Appellants since his right is restricted only to the e