Quashed

Panchu Kahali v. Bansidhara Behera

Orissa HC9 Nov 2015WP(C)/5466/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order allowing the impleadment of an intervenor in a civil suit. The court found a conflict between the suit schedule and the intervenor's property without proof of purchase. Quashing the order, it remanded the matter to examine the intervening party's sale deed.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 18.2.2009 quashed; matter remitted to trial court to examine intervenor's sale deed and dispose of fresh.

Assailing the order dated 18.2.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division ), 1st Court, Cuttack in C.S No.190 of 2008, vide Annexure-3, the instant petition is filed un der Article 227 of the Constitution of India. By the said order, learned trial court allowed t he application filed under Order 1 Rule 3 and 10 CPC to implead the intervenor as defendant no .3.

Mr. Giri, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners as plaintiffs instituted C.S No.166/190 of 2006/2008 in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Divisio n), 1st Court, Cuttack to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 4.2.2003 passed in T.S. No.149 of 1989 and for permanent injunction restraining defendant no.1 not to interfere w ith their peaceful possession and certain other ancillary reliefs. He submits that the interve nor is neither necessary party nor proper party to the suit. According to Mr. Giri, learned tr ial court has committed manifest illegality and impropriety in allowing the application for im pleadment when intervenor has not purchased any part of the suit schedule property. Drawing my attention to Annexure-5, i.e., the application filed by the plaintiffs to recall the order al lowing the intervenors application, he submits that the intervenor has not purchased any part of the suit schedule property.

On a cursory perusal of the schedule of the properties mentioned in the said a pplication, it is evident that the suit schedule property appertaining to Hal Khata No.83, Plo t No.140/1071, whereas schedule property purchased by the intervenor appertains to Hal Khata N o.179, Plot No.140. Apparently there is a conflict between the two schedules.

In view of the same, the order dated 18.2.2009 passed by the learned Civil J udge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Cuttack in C.S No.190 of 2008, vide Annexure-3, is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the learned trial court for fresh disposal. Learned trial cour t is directed to examine the sale deed of the intervenor and find out as to whether the interv enor has purchased the suit schedule property and thereafter pass necessary order in accordanc e with law.

Panchu Kahali v. Bansidhara Behera

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Panchu Kahali v. Bansidhara Behera

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.Binod Ch.Mohanty Vs Cm,Sbi

Premalata Dalai Vs State

Pradhan Vs Chairman-Cum-M.D

D.Prakash Rao Vs Sambalpur Municipal Corporation

Pradeepta Mohapatra Vs Collector-Cum-Dm,Jagatsinghpur

Om Prakash Juneja@Om Prakash Vs Sambalpur Municipal Corporation