Dismissed

Ajay Kumar Barik v. Balakrushna Panda

Orissa HC17 Dec 2018CMP/1154/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge High Court order dismissed the petitioner's C.M.P. seeking impleadment of Sunad Baliarsingh, who claimed to be the actual owner of a motor cycle sued for illegal seizure. The court held that since no relief was sought against Sunad and the plaintiff was the dominus litis, the impleadment was unnecessary under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.

What did the court decide?

Petition for impleadment of Sunad Baliarsingh dismissed.

Ajay Kumar Barik Vs Balakrushna Panda — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Orissa HC (2018)

¶1

C.M.P.No.1154 of 2018

¶2

4 17.12.2018

¶3

This petition challenges the order dated 19.1.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kodala in Civil Suit No.12 of 2011. By the said order, learned trial court rejected the petition of defendant no.2 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to implead Sunad Baliarsingh.

¶4

The plaintiff-opposite party no.1 has instituted the suit for compensation of Rs.50,000/- for illegal seizure of his motor cycle. Pursuant to issuance of notice, defendant no.2 entered appearance and filed written statement and counter claim pleading inter alia that plaintiff is not the owner of the motor cycle. While the matter stood thus, defendant no.2 filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to implead one Sunad Baliarsingh. According to defendant no.2, Sunad Baliarsingh is the owner of the motor cycle. The learned trial court came to hold that no relief has been claimed against Sunad Baliarsingh. The plaintiff is the dominus litis. Held so, learned trial court dismissed the petition.

¶5

¶6

Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the plaintiff is not the owner of the motor cycle. Sunad Baliarsingh is the owner of the motor cycle. In view of the same, she is necessary party to the suit.

¶7

The distinction between a necessary party and a proper party is well known. In Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Additional Member Board of Revenue, Bihar and another, AIR 1963 SC 786, the apex Court held that a necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively; a proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can

¶8

be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceeding.

¶9

The plaintiff has instituted the suit alleging inter alia the illegal seizure of motor cycle. The plaintiff has to prove that he is the owner of the motor cycle. It is open to defendant no.2 to adduce evidence that plaintiff is not the owner of the motor cycle.

¶10

In view of the same, the petition is dismissed.

¶11

Dr.A.K.Rath, J.

¶12

Ajay Kumar Barik v. Balakrushna Panda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Kumar Barik v. Balakrushna Panda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santosh Dash Vs State of Orissa

M/S R.L. Singh Engineers and Builders Private Limited Vs Pramod Ku.Sharma

Suchit Kumar Sabat Vs Niru Prava Sabat

Sanatana Karada Vs State of Odisha

Tikal Biswal@Tikala Biswal Vs State of Odisha

Nilamani Maharana Vs Chairman,Paradip Port Trust