Dismissed¶22

Budhu Oraon v. Prabhu Oraon

Jharkhand HC11 Sept 2025C.M.P./100/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Order 1 Rule 8A CPC; impleadment of party; non-joinder of necessary party; antecedent title over suit property; opinion on question of law by non-party; Order 1 Rule 10 CPC; Article 227 Constitution of India; quashing of order; C.M.P.; High Court of Jharkhand; Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.; M.C.A. No. 198 of 2023; Original Suit No. 256 of 2019; Original Title Suit No. 175 of 2015.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate petition for his impleadment in the Trial Court under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC ¶22

Budhu Oraon Vs Prabhu Oraon — Writ and Judicial Review | Jharkhand HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate petition for his impleadment in the Trial Court under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 21.08.2023 passed in M.C.A. No. 198 of 2023 rejecting the petitioner's petition under Order 1 Rule 8A CPC is liable to be quashed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. +1 more

¶17

Court's answer

There is no infirmity in the impugned order; a plea of impleadment under Order 1 Rule 8A CPC is altogether different from a plea of impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

Order 1 Rule 8A CPC empowers the Court, while trying a suit, to allow a person who is not a party to the suit to present his or its opinion on a question of law directly and substantially arising in the suit and to take such part in the proceedings as the Court may specify.

¶21

Key takeaways

A plea of impleadment founded on antecedent title over the suit property is not a ground that can be entertained under Order 1 Rule 8A CPC.ratio¶22
The petitioner is at liberty to file an appropriate petition for his impleadment in the Trial Court under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Miscellaneous Petition (C.M.P. No. 100 of 2024) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 21.08.2023 in M.C.A. No. 198 of 2023 (arising out of Original Suit No. 256 of 2019) rejecting the petitioner's application under Order 1 Rule 8A CPC for impleadment, filed on the plea that he was a necessary party holding title over the suit property by virtue of a judgment and decree in Original Title Suit No. 175 of 2015. Held, dismissing the petition: (i) a plea of impleadment under Order 1 Rule 8A CPC — which enables the Court, while trying a suit, to allow a non-party to present opinion on a question of law directly and substantially arising in the suit and to take such part in the proceedings as the Court may specify — is altogether different from a plea of impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC; (ii) a plea of impleadment based on antecedent title over the property cannot be a ground under Order 1 Rule 8A CPC. The petitioner was granted liberty to file an appropriate impleadment petition before the Trial Court under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. Pending I.A., if any, disposed of.

¶1

2025:JHHC:27801

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 100 of 2024

¶3

Budhu Oraon, S/o Late Baha Oraon @ Charwa Oraon, R/o Village Saparom, P.O. & P.S. Nagari, District Ranchi, Jharkhand

¶4

..... .... Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Prabhu Oraon son of Late Mangara Oraon.

¶7

Budhuwa Oraon son of Sri Prabhu Oraon.

¶8

Both are residents of Village Chipra, Bobro, P.O. Chipra, P.S. Nagri, District Ranchi.

¶9

Lakhana Oraon son of Late Chunda Oraon, resident of Village Saparom, P.O. and P.S. Nagari, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.

¶10

Baliram Kujur son of Kastu Kujur, resident of Village Saparom, P.O. and P.S. Nagari, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.

¶11

Narendra Kumar Oraon son of Sri Bandhana Oraon, resident of Village Naro, P.O. and P.S. Nagri, District Ranchi.

¶12

The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, having its office at Kuchhari Chowk, P.O. GPO Ranchi, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi.

¶13

… …. Opposite Parties

¶14

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶15

For the Petitioner : Mr. P.K. Mukhopadhyay, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sachin Kumar, AC to SC-I ------

¶16

Order No. 05 / Dated : 11.09.2025.

¶17

The instant civil miscellaneous petition has been filed under Article 227 of the constitution of India for quashing the order dated 21.08.2023 passed in M.C.A. No. 198 of 2023 arising out of Original Suit No.256 of 2019 by which the petition under Order 1 Rule 8A of the CPC has been rejected. The said petition was filed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party on the plea that he was a necessary party in the suit and the suit was filed without impleading him. Ground of impleadment is that he had the title over the suit property on the basis of judgment and decree passed in Original Tittle suit No. 175 of 2015.

¶18

Learned Trial Court rejected the petition on the ground that Order 1 Rule 8A of the CPC was with respect to power of Court to permit a person or body of person to present opinion or to take part in the proceeding.

¶19

Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order for the reason that plea of impleadment under Order 1 Rule 8A of the CPC is altogether different than the plea of impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC.

¶20

2025:JHHC:27801

¶21

In the present case, a plea of title has been raised for being impleaded under Order 1 Rule 8A of the CPC. It empowers the Court, while trying a suit to allow a person, even if such person is not a party in the suit, to present his or its opinion on a question of law directly and substantially arising in the suit, for that purpose to take such part in the proceedings of the suit as the court may specify.

¶22

5. Here the plea of impleadment is altogether on a different ground based on an antecedent title over the property and this cannot be a ground so far Order 1 Rule 8A of CPC is concerned. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned order. Civil Miscellaneous Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to file an appropriate petition for his impleadment in the Trial Court under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

¶23

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶24

Pawan / -

Budhu Oraon v. Prabhu Oraon

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Budhu Oraon v. Prabhu Oraon

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Seneth Munda Vs Rajesh Kachhap

Indra Narayan Singh Vs Pushpa Devi and Ors.

Ganesh Chand Lal Choudhary Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sanjay Kumar Jain Vs National Insurance Co. Represented through Divisional Manager

Saroj Devi Alias Saroj Devi Sharma Vs Raj Kumar Singhania

Angad Sharma Alias Angad Barhi Vs Anup Rajgaria