In an application filed before the Orissa High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge an order dated 17-08-2022 by the Senior Civil Judge, Baripada, whereby opposite parties 1 to 5 were allowed to be impleaded as defendants under Order I Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), a Single Judge Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra found the impugned order to be unsustainable in the eyes of law and set it aside.
The petitioner had purchased the subject land from the recorded owner. The subject land was an agricultural land that was converted into Gharabari (Homestead), and after the land was mutated in her favor, the Record of Rights (ROR) was published.
The petitioner contended that on 25-08-2021, the defendants disturbed her possession by uprooting the boundary cement pillars. On 01-09-2021, the defendants obstructed the petitioner and her husband when they tried to construct the boundary wall. Hence, the petitioner had filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against the defendants, directing them not to enter the subject land, along with compensation of Rs. 30,000/-.
The contesting defendants filed a joint written statement and pleaded that, as per the ROR, the subject land was communal in nature, which is why a private individual could not get the same recorded in his/her favor. It was stated that the villagers had a communal interest in the land used as a public road, playground, etc. The third-party interveners (opposite parties 1 to 5) filed an application under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC to be impleaded as parties to the suit. By the impugned order, the application was allowed, and the said interveners were permitted to be impleaded as defendants.
The petitioners contended that a plaintiff is dominus litis who has a right to choose his adversaries against whom he seeks relief. The defendants argued that the villagers were necessary parties in a representative capacity, which is why the application was rightly allowed.
The Court referred to the stand taken by the original defendants in their written statement and the application filed by the interveners, and found no difference between the two. Hence, the Court found the argument that villagers had an interest in the subject land, as it was communal in nature, unacceptable, as the original defendants had taken the same stand in their written statement.
The Court stated that the intervenors had failed to demonstrate that the suit could not be effectively adjudicated in their absence. It was found that the court below did not mention any specific reason to allow the application of the intervenors, and since the plaintiff was dominus litis, he could not be forced to implead someone against whom he did not specifically seek relief.
Thus, the Court held that the impugned order could not be sustained in the eye of the law and set it aside, while dismissing the application filed by opposite parties 1 to 5 under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC.
Appearances:
For Petitioner – Mr. Anupam Dash
For Opposite Parties – Mr. P.K. Satapathy
