The trial court allowed the Civil Judge to implead villagers as necessary parties in a land suit concerning 'gochar' and 'Unnata Yojana Yogya' land, holding their grazing rights were likely to be affected despite the plaintiff being dominus litis.
CMP No.356 of 2020 dismissed sans merit.
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.
CMP No.356 of 2020
4. 03.12.2020
Due to outbreak of COVID-19, this matter is taken up through Video Conferencing.
Civil Suit No.867 of 2015 has been filed with the
following reliefs:-
“I) For that, the right title and interests of the plaintiff in the suit lands properties may kindly be declared. The plaintiff of the suit be declared as undisputed owner in possession in the suit lands properties under the provisions of law and the procedure as established by law.
For that, the exclusive, uninterrupted and open settled possession of the plaintiff in the suit lands properties may kindly be confirmed and in case of proof of the dispossession of the plaintiff from the suit lands properties by the defendants of the suit during the pendency of the suit, then recovery of possession be made in favour of the plaintiff of the suit.
II) For that, this Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to pass a declaratory decree that, the original tenant-raiyat namely Upendra Majhi had acquired occupancy right under the provisions of Orissa Tenancy Act and other prevailing laws.
III) For that, the settlement entries as recorded in M.S.Plot No.231 and 246 under M.S.Khata
2
No.227 of village Kasoti PS-Dhamnagar DistBhadrak under M.S.R.O.R. relating the suit lands under ‘Government Khata’ may kindly be adjudged and declared as wrong and thus the defendants may kindly be directed to correct the settlement error by opening fresh zamabandi Khata in favour of the plaintiff of the suit relating the suit lands properties.
IV) For that, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass a decree in declaring the institution of the Encroachment proceeding vide No.85 of 2015-16 and the impugned Order as followed from it as illegal and invalid one in the eye of law.
V) For that, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants of the suit and thereby permanently injuncting the defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff against the suit lands properties; thereby restraining the defendants from evicting the plaintiff from the suit lands properties; thereby restraining the defendants from leasing out the suit land property in favour of any other persons.
VI) For that, cost of the suit may kindly be granted in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants of the suit under the provisions of law.
VII) For that, any other appropriate relief(s) if any may kindly be granted in favour of the plaintiff if this Hon’ble Court adjudged it just and proper to grant in the interest of law and administration of justice.”
3
villagers have interest over the said land. Hence, any judgment and decree to be passed in the said suit in their absence may prejudice them. The petitioner as plaintiff filed his objection stating that the plaintiff does not claim any relief against the villagers and the land in question has been wrongly recorded in government khata, although the petitioner has his residential house and tank situated over the same. Since the interest of the villagers is wellprotected by the Collector, Bhadrak they are neither necessary nor proper parties to the suit. The suit can be effectively decided in their absence.
4
Others reported in 2016 SCC Online Ori 8, while deciding the case, has passed the impugned order. Hence, he prays for setting aside the impugned order under Annexure-4 and remand the same to learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhadrak for reconsideration keeping in mind the aforesaid principles decided in the aforesaid case laws.
5
‘Unnata Yojana Yogya’, the villagers are necessary parties to the suit.
.................................
ss
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Order 1 Rule 10 CPC order impleading villagers with grazing ('gochar') rights as necessary parties is lawful.
Whether the doctrine of dominus litis precludes the impleadment of villagers whose land rights may be affected by the suit decree.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Panjum Bibi @ Ramjan Bibi and 7 others v. Najma Alim and anotherReferred¶21
Panjum Bibi @ Ramjan Bibi and 7 others -vNajma Alim and another (2008) II OLR 747
Md. Allauddin v. The Collector, Sundargarh & OthersReferred¶21
Md. Allauddin -v- The Collector, Sundargarh & Others reported in 2016 SCC Online Ori 8 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner (Plaintiff)
Opposite Party Nos. 3 to 9
Unnamed Judge
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
