In a suit for permanent injunction, parties may be impleaded if their presence is essential for complete adjudication, even if the suit does not directly resolve their rights.

ORDER :

K.R.MOHAPATRA, J.

4. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Order dated 19^th January, 2024 (Annexure-1) passed in C.S. No.16 of 2015 is under challenge in this CMP, whereby learned Civil Judge, Chandikhole rejected an application filed by the Plaintiffs-Petitioners to implead Narayan Chandra Bal, Swarnalata Behura and Kanchanlata Jena as Defendant Nos.2 to 4 to the suit.

3. Ms. Mishra, learned counsel submits that the suit has been filed by the Plaintiffs-Petitioners for permanent injunction. The suit land was jointly purchased by the father of the Plaintiffs and father of the vendor of Defendant-Opposite Party, namely, Guru Charan Bal. However, the consolidation ROR was prepared exclusively in the name of said Guru Charan Bal, for which an application under Section 37 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 is pending before the Commissioner. Since the Defendant made an attempt to alienate the suit property and the Consolidation Authority has no jurisdiction to pass an order of injunction, this suit has been filed for the aforesaid relief. During pendency of the suit, the Plaintiffs had filed I.A. No.16 of 2015 for injunction. In the said I.A., the Defendant had filed objection stating inter alia that the vendor of the Plaintiffs is a necessary party to the suit. In his absence, the suit is bad for non- joinder of parties and is liable to be dismissed. The suit land has been recorded in the name of Guru Charan Bal and his son, namely, Narayan Chandra Bal sold the suit property to the Defendant. Thus, in order to avoid any complications in adjudication of the suit, the Plaintiffs-Petitioners filed an application for impletion of Narayan Chandra Bal (the vendor of the Defendant) and his sisters, namely, Swarnalata Behura and Kanchanlata Jena as Defendant Nos.2 to 4 to the suit. Learned trial Court holding that in F.A.O. No.35 of 2015, learned Additional District Judge, Jajpur directed for early disposal of the suit and the parties sought to be impleaded are not necessary parties, rejected the application by the impugned order. Hence, this CMP has been filed.

4. It is submitted by Ms. Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioners that since the Defendant has taken a specific plea that his vendor is a proper party and in his absence, the suit is bad for non-joinder of party, his impletion is imperative to avoid multiplicity of litigation. She further submits that the land stands recorded in the name of Guru Charan Bal. After his death, interest in the suit devolved upon his successors. Thus, thesisters of Narayan Chandra Bal are also proper parties to the suit and should have been impleaded. Learned trial Court without considering the fact that the party sought to be impleaded are proper parties and in their presence an effective decree can be passed, rejected the petition. Hence, she prays for setting aside the impugned order under Annexure-1.

5. Mr. Rout, learned counsel for the Defendant-Opposite Party vehemently objects to the same. It is his submission that no relief has been claimed against the parties, proposed to be impleaded to the suit. It is a suit for injunction and specific prayer has been made to pass an order of injunction against the Defendant. Further no right, title and interest is going to be decided in a suit for permanent injunction. Thus, the parties sought to be impleaded are neither necessary nor proper parties to the suit. In the objection to the petition for injunction, a formal objection was raised to the effect that the vendor of the Defendant is a proper party to the suit. But, he is neither a necessary nor proper party to the suit. The objection raised in the objection filed by the Defe