Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack

Date: 01-Dec-2025 13:06:53

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

C.M.P. No.932 of 2025

(In the matter of an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India)

Santosh Kumar Behera and …. Petitioners

another -versus-

Rajeswari Behera and others …. Opposite Parties

Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-

For Petitioners : Mr. P.K. Nanda, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. P.K. Panda, Advocate

For O.P. Nos.1 & 2

Mr. S.K. Pradhan, Advocate

For O.P. Nos.3, 4 & 7

CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY

JUDGMENT

27^th November 2025

B.P. Routray, J.

1. Heard Mr. P.K. Nanda, learned Advocate for the Petitioners, Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Advocate for the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 and Mr.

S.K. Pradhan, learned Advocate for the Opposite Parties 3, 4 & 7.

2. Since Opposite Parties 1 & 2, who are the Plaintiffs in the suit, are the contesting parties here, the C.M.P. is heard in absence of those

unrepresented Opposite Parties.

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 01-Dec-2025 13:06:53

3. Present C.M.P. is directed against the order dated 10.04.2023 of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Chatrapur, Ganjam passed in F.D.C.S. No.61 of 2008, wherein the prayer of the Petitioners to be added in the suit during final decree proceeding as Defendants has been rejected.

4. Present Opposite Parties 1 & 2 being the Plaintiffs filed C.S. No.61 of 2008 which was decreed preliminarily on 22^nd January 2015 and thereafter the final decree proceeding was initiated. The suit is for partition and the shares have been determined in respect of the parties present in the suit. Present Petitioner No.1, namely, Santosh Kumar Behera claimed to be the adopted son of Arakhita and Jamuna (Defendant No.2) and Petitioner No.2 claimed to be the adopted son of Sarat and Manda, prayed to be added as parties in the suit by filing a petition jointly under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. Learned trial court rejected such prayer of the Petitioners mainly on the ground that they approached at a belated stage when the final decree proceeding is pending.

5. The principles to be arrayed as a party in terms of Order 1 Rule 10, C.P.C. has been well settled in several judicial pronouncements. If a person satisfies to be the necessary party in the suit there would not Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 01-Dec-2025 13:06:53 be any difficulty to add him as a party to the suit. The principles for impleading a party to the suit has been well discussed in Mumbai International Airport (P) Ltd. v. Regency Convention Centre &

Hotels (P) Ltd., (2010) 7 SCC 417. It has been held that:- “13. The general rule in regard to impleadment of parties is that the plaintiff in a suit, being dominus litis, may choose the persons against whom he wishes to litigate and cannot be compelled to sue a person against whom he does not seek any relief. Consequently, a person who is not a party has no right to be impleaded against the wishes of the plaintiff. But this general rule is subject to the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (“the Code”, for short), which provides for impleadment of proper or necessary parties. The said sub-rule is extracted below:

“10. (2) Court may strike out or add parties.—The court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added.”

14. The said provision makes it clear that a court may, at any stage of the proceedings (including suits for specific performance), either upon or even without any application, and on such terms as may appear to it to be just, direct that any