A plaintiff cannot be compelled to implead a party against whom they do not claim relief, preserving scope and intent of the original partition suit.

JUDGMENT

K.R.MOHAPATRA, J.

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. I.A. No. 40 of 2024 has been filed for modification of the interim order dated 22^nd November, 2023 passed in I.A. No.1350 of 2023, whereby this Court directed that operation of the order dated 16^th October, 2023 (Annexure-6) passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Keonjhar in C.S. No.169 of 2022 shall remain stayed till the next date.

3. In course of hearing of the interim application, learned counsel for both the parties have agreed for final disposal of the writ petition. Hence, the CMP is taken up for final disposal.

4. This CMP has been filed seeking for a direction to set aside the order dated 16^th October, 2023 (Annexure-6) passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Keonjhar in C.S. No.169 of 2022, whereby an application filed by the Opposite Party No.1 to be impleaded as a party to the suit has been allowed.

5. Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that C.S. No.169 of 2022 has been filed for partition of the suit property allotting 1/12^th share to each of the parties to the suit. In the plaint, it is stated that the Plaintiff and Defendants have jointly purchased the suit property vide registered sale deed No. 1347 dated 5^th August, 2022 and R.O.R. has already been published in their name jointly. Thus, they seek for partition of the suit property. At the fag end of the suit, an application was filed under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. by the Opposite Party No.1 to be impleaded as a party to the suit stating that his mother had purchased the suit property from the recorded tenant in the year, 1971 and 1976 by virtue of two registered sale deeds. Thus, the Opposite Party No.1 has interest over the suit property. He has also filed a suit, i.e. C.S. No.85 of 2023, which is pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Keonjhar for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit property and also to declare the registered sale deed dated 5^th August, 2022 executed by Defendant Nos.1 and 2 in favour of Defendant Nos.12 to 23 to be null and void and also for a preliminary decree allotting 1/4^th share in favour of the Plaintiff over the suit property.

5.1 Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that parties to the C.S. No.169 of 2022 are Defendant Nos.12 to 23 in C.S. No.85 of 2023 filed by Opposite Party No.1. Thus, the Opposite Party No.1 essentially claims independent right, title and interest over the suit property. He is a stranger to their family and the Plaintiff does not claim any relief against him. If the Opposite Party No.1 is impleaded as a party, scope of the suit will be expanded, which is not permissible under law. He relied upon the ratio decided in the case of Sudhamayee Pattnaik and others v. Bibhu Prasad Sahu and others , 2022 SCC Online SC 1234, wherein it is held at paragraph-11 as under:

“11. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the defendants in the suit filed application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and prayed to implead the subsequent purchasers as party defendants. The suit is for declaration, permanent injunction and recovery of possession. As per the settled position of law, the plaintiffs are the domius litis. Unless the court suo motu directs to join any other person not party to the suit for effective decree and/or for proper adjudication as per Order 1 Rule 10 , nobody can be permitted to be impleaded as defendants against the wish of the plaintiffs. Not impleading any other person as defendants against the wish of the plaintiffs shall be at the risk of the plaintiffs. Therefore, subsequent purchasers could not have been impleaded as party defendants in the applic