IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

C.M.P. No.653 of 2023

(An application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India)

---------------

M/s. S.S. Aluminium Pvt. Ltd.,

Balasore & Another ...… Petitioners

-Versus-

Canara Bank, Sahadev Khunta Branch,

Balasore & Others

..…. Opp. Parties

Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-

_______________________________________________________

For Petitioners : Mr. M. Mohanty, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. B.N. Udgata, Advocate

___________________________________________

CORAM:

JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

JUDGMENT

18^th November, 2025

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

Defendant Nos.3 and 4 in C.S. No.727 of 2022

pending before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jaleswar are the petitioners in the present writ application wherein, they question the correctness of order dated 13.03.2023

passed by the said Court directing impletion of the present Opposite Party No.1 as a defendant in the suit.

2. The facts are as follows:-

The above-mentioned suit has been filed by the present Opposite Party No.2 as plaintiff for partition of schedule B to J properties, said to be ancestral properties of the parties. The plaintiff-Amita Rani Mohanty and defendant No.3 Jadabendra Pradhan are the children of Laxmikanta Pradhan (defendant No.1) and Arati Pradhan (defendant No.2). Schedule B property is recorded in the name of defendant No.4. Schedule C to H properties are recorded in the name of defendant No.3 which are said to have been acquired out of ancestral family funds. Schedule I and J properties are recorded in the name of defendant No.2, also said to have been acquired out of ancestral family funds. During pendency of the suit, the present Opposite Party No.1 i.e., (Canara Bank) filed application on 21.12.2022 for being impleaded as a party to the suit under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC.

3. The plaintiff filed objection that the schedule properties have not yet been partitioned by metes and bounds for which each and every co-sharer has right over every inch of the properties. The trial Court however, allowed the petition by holding that the Opposite Party No.1 has an interest in the suit properties. Defendant Nos.3 and 4 (present petitioners) not having appeared in the suit pursuant to summons contended that they had no scope to contest the intervention petition but having come to know about such fact from the plaintiff, obtained copy of the impugned order and have filed the present writ application impugning the same.

4. Heard Mr. M. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-defendant Nos.3 and 4 and Mr. B.N. Udgata, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No.1(Bank).

5. Mr. Mohanty would argue that the intervener not being a co-sharer cannot be impleaded as a party in a suit for partition as it would change the nature, character and scope of the suit. The petitioner-defendants not having been heard at the time of hearing of the intervention petition may be given an opportunity of being heard afresh. Mr. Mohanty further argues that even otherwise, the objection of the plaintiff with regard to the maintainability of the application for intervention has not been considered at all by the Court below.

6. Mr. Udgata, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.1 (Bank) would submit that undisputedly, the suit properties being mortgaged to the Bank for credit availed by defendant Nos.2, 3 and 4 and they having defaulted in repayment thereof, the Bank took constructive possession and has also sold the same to auction purchasers exercising power under the provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Certain proceedings challenging the auction sales are pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Cuttack at the instance of the loanee- defendants. Under such circumstances, the plaintiff being the sister of defendant No.3, has been set-up to file the instant suit for partition without impleading the Bank or disclosing that the properties were mortgaged with it. Mr.