Court dismissed a civil miscellaneous petition challenging the addition of a new party (Intervener) under Order I Rule 10 CPC in a property dispute, finding prima facie claim and necessity for adjudication, reserving locus standi for final decision.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.M.P. No.1461 of 2017
Heard Shri S.S. Das, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, Shri B. Muduli, learned counsel for the opposite party no.1 and Shri P.K. Sahoo, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.
This matter involves allowing an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C. at the instance of the intervener.
For the relief sought for through the plaint averments and facts brought by the intervener through the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C. vide Annexure4, Shri Das, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner objected allowing of the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C. by the trial court. For no claim of relief involving the intervener and for no material coming forth establishing the intervener has any interest involving the suit proceeding, Shri Das, further submitted that there has been no proper consideration of all these aspects by the trial court particularly while allowing the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C. Sri Das, the learned Senior Counsel on the premises that the intervener is neither a necessary party nor even a proper party to the pending litigation submitted that there is illegal acceptance of the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C. Thus a request is made for interfering in the impugned order and setting aside the same.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties particularly for the intervener the applicants in the court below contended that for the specific pleadings involving the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C., there appears, there is proper consideration of the request
2
of the intervener-opposite party no.2 herein and there is no infirmity in the impugned order. Counsel for the contesting defendants did not resist the allowing of the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C. by the trial court.
Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds, the plaintiff has sought for the following relief:
“7. That therefore, the petitioner prays as follows:-
Looking to the nature of the suit, this Court finds, the suit is for permanent injunction involving the disputed property. Further, looking to the pleadings available on record and also taking into account the submission of Shri Das, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, this Court finds, admittedly, the interim injunction order is operating against the defendants already existed in the suit.
Reading of the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C at Annexure-4, this Court finds, the intervener has made the following pleadings in paragraph nos.3, 4 & 5:
“ 3. That it is pertinent to mention here that the defendant in the present suit is the General Manger of M/s. SEW Infrastructure Private Limited and their company is executing/Constructing the New Railway Project from Angul to Sukinda BG Rail link Project and he has been engaged by
3
the RVNL for construction of railway road bed work along with minor bridges from 0.0K.M. to 19.0K.M and 47 K.M. to 96 K.M. More over the defendant in the present suit company during execution of the work dumped the soil/earth over the government land which is claimed by the plaintiff belongs to her. When the railway project belongs to East Coats Railway of Government of India and the land acquisition made by the Government of Odisha it is very much essential for addition of the East Coast Railway as one of the defendant for better adjudication of this case. As in the absence of the necessary party the case cannot be adjudicated as per the prevailing law.
4
Perusal of the pleadings made in the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C., this Court finds, the intervener has prima facie satisfied its claim for entering into the contest of the suit. It is a different aspect as to whether the intervener-opposite party no.2 will succeed or not in the suit but at least deserves a fare trial and merit in the suit involving the intervener cannot be gone into at this stage. Again for the allowing of the intervention, plaintiff has the opportunity of evidence. This Court here observes that while considering the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C., the requirement of law is only to find out a prima facie case in making such application and whether the party has locus standi to contest the suit or has any claim as well as merit involving the suit, are the aspects to be gone into at the time of trial of the suit. For the pleadings involving the suit and the pleadings involving the Order 1 Rule 10 application for the addition of the party, this Court finds, the addition not only facilitate effective
5
adjudication of the suit but will also avoid multiplicity of suit. Law as enunciated in the case of Biswanath Sahu versus K. Somanath Subudhi and others as reported in Vol.32(1990)OJD 539 has clarified that power vested under the rule is not only discretionary but it is also wide and does not depend merely on the wish of the plaintiff.
Perused the impugned order. For the directions contained therein, the observations of this Court made hereinabove and the decision of this Court indicated hereinabove, this Court finds, there is no infirmity in allowing such application, however while dismissing the civil miscellaneous petition for having no merit, this Court keeps the question of locus standi of the opposite party no.2 raised herein by the petitioner, open to be decided in the suit ultimately, if an issue involving the same is sought for. It is also made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the suit. The suit shall also be decided independent of its own and without being influenced either by the observations made in the impugned order or by the observations of this Court in the case at hand.
The civil miscellaneous petition stands dismissed.
…….………………… (Biswanath Rath, J.)
Ayas
6
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Biswanath Sahu versus K. Somanath Subudhi and othersReferred¶24
Vol.32(1990)OJD 539
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Applicant (Intervener)
Appellant
Opposite party no.1
Opposite party no.2 (Intervener-opposite party)
Biswanath Rath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Biswanath Rath
Parties & counsel
