Advocates:
['M/S JAYDEEP PAL', '', 'A DAS', 'B K MISHRA', 'ASHOK MOHANTYSR ADV', '', 'S K MISHRA', 'H MOHARANA', 'M/S SURYAKANTA DASH', 'M BISWAL']

Page 1 of 4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CMP NO. 1723 OF 2016

Rajalaxmi Mahapatra @ Mekap and

another

&.

Petitioners

Mr. Jaydeep Pal, Advocate

-versus-

Babi Mahapatra and others

&.

Opp. Parties

Mr. Ashok Mohanty, Senior Advocate

CORAM:

JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

16.11.2022

8.

1.

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2.

Although this matter is listed for extension of the interim

order dated 18^th January, 2017, but on consent of learned counsel

for the parties, the CMP is taken up for final disposal.

3.

Order dated 21^st October, 2016 (Annexure-4) passed by

learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Puri in C.S. No. 347 of

2006 is under challenge in this CMP, whereby an application

filed by the Plaintiffs-Petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C.

to implead Shree Jagannath Temple Administration, Puri as a

party to the suit has been rejected.

4.

Mr. Pal, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that

the suit has been filed for cancellation of the sale deed no.1764

dated 12^th May, 2000 alleged to have been executed by the

Plaintiffs and Defendant Nos.2 to 4 in favour of Defendant No.1

in respect of the suit property and for declaration of their right,

title and interest over suit Chulas and Punkties and a further

declaration that the Defendant No.1 has no right, title, interest or

// 2 //

Page 2 of 4

possession of the suit Chulas and Punkties over the suit property

and for other ancillary relief. Admittedly, the Opposite Parties

to the suit are Sevayats of Shree Jagannath Temple, Puri and

they are discharging their functions as per the R.O.R. Since the

R.O.R. in respect of the suit property stands recorded in the

name of Shree Jagannath Temple Administration, Puri and

parties to the suit are Sevayats, said Shree Jagannath Temple

Administration, Puri is a necessary party to the suit.

Accordingly, an application for impleation of Shree Jagannath

Temple Administration, Puri was filed serving notice on Shree

Jagannath Temple Administration, Puri under Section 80 C.P.C.

Learned trial Court under a misconception of law that the Chief

Administrator of Shree Jagannath Temple Administration, Puri

is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the suit dismissed the

said petition. Hence, this CMP has been filed.

5.

It is his submission that the suit Chulas and Punkties

belong to Shree Jagannath Temple Administration, Puri and the

Plaintiffs and Defendants are discharging their duties as per the

R.O.R. issued. Thus, the presence of Shree Jagannath Temple

Administration, Puri will facilitate effective and complete

adjudication of the suit. Hence, he prays for setting aside the

impugned order and to permit the Petitioners to implead Shree

Jagannath

Temple

Administration,

Puri

through

Chief

Administrator as a party to the suit.

6.

Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the

Opposite Parties refuting the same contended that no notice

whatsoever

was

served

on

Shree

Jagannath

Temple

Administration, Puri as alleged in the petition. However, the

// 3 //

Page 3 of 4

sale deed was allegedly executed by the Plaintiffs and Defendant

Nos.2 to 4 in favour of Defendant No.1. Since it is an inter se

dispute between the Plaintiffs and Defendants, the presence of

Shree Jagannath Temple Administration, Puri is not required.

Any document and information from Shree Jagannath Temple

Administration, Puri can be obtained by filing appropriate

application. Thus, learned trial Court has committed no error in

rejecting the application.

7.

Considering the rival contentions of the parties and on

perusal of the record, it appears that the suit has been filed

claiming right, title and interest over the suit Chulas a