IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No.63 of 2025 Smt. Rukmani Sahoo and others ..... Petitioners Represented by Adv. - Sukanta Kumar Nayak -versus-

Akhay Barik and others ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv. -

CORAM:

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

ORDER

11.03.2026 Order No.

03. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners. Perused the CMP application as well as the prayer made therein.

3. Although notices were issued by this Court vide order dated 29.10.2025 and the office report reveals that the notice has been duly served on the Opposite Parties, however, none appears for the Opposite Parties.

4. By filing the present CMP application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the plaintiff in C.S. No.47 of 2022, pending in the court of learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Chandikhole has approached this Court assailing order dated 07.10.2024 passed on an application filed by the Intervener-Opposite Party Nos.14 to 18 under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners at the outset contended that the Petitioner as plaintiff filed the above noted suit for pre- emption. Originally the Opposite Party Nos.14 to 18 were not arrayed as parties to the suit. Subsequently, during pendency of the suit the Opposite Party Nos.14 to 18 filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC as stranger Opposite Parties stating therein that their common ancestor, namely one Kalpana Sahoo, who happens to be the daughter of one Ekadashi Sahoo, is related to the plaintiff. Therefore, the Opposite Party Nos.14 to 18 filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 to be impleaded as parties to the suit stating in their application that they are necessary parties to the suit

6. The application filed by the Opposite Party Nos.14 to 18 under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC was taken up for hearing and the same was allowed by order dated 07.10.2024 at Annexure-4 to the CMP application. While assailing the impugned order dated 07.10.2024 the learned counsel for the plaintiff-Petitioner contended that in their application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC at Annexure- 2 to the CMP application, the Opposite Party Nos.14 to 18 have not given any details as to how they are related to the plaintiff and in what way they are prejudiced. He further contended that the Opposite Party Nos.14 to 18 have miserably failed to establish the fact that they are necessary parties to the suit which is evident from the application at Annexure-2 to the CMP application. He further contended that no document in support of such contention was ever filed along with the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, referring to the objection filed by the plaintiff-Petitioner before the learned trial Court at Annexure-3 to the CMP application, categorically submitted that the contention raised in the application at Annexure-2 by the Opposite Party Nos.14 to 18 was shortly denied by the plaintiff and it was disputed and denied that the above named Kalpana Sahoo is in anyway related to the plaintiff’s family.

7. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner, drawing attention of this Court to the impugned order dated 07.10.2024 at Annexure-4, stated before this Court that the learned trial Court by virtue of a short and cryptic order allowed the Opposite Party Nos.14 to 18 to be impleaded as defendants to the suit without verifying the assertions made by the Opposite Party Nos.14 to 18. He further contended that there is nothing on record, at least in their application at Annexure-2 to the CMP application, to establish the fact that the above named Kalpana Sahoo is anyway connected to the plaintiff or his family. The learned trial Court by virtue of the impugned order dated 07.10.2024, after considering the objection filed by the plaintiff to the application of the Opposite Party Nos.14 to 18, came to a conclusion that the LRs of Kalpana Sahoo are necessary parties to