Allowed

Satrughna Padhan v. Dama Padhan

Orissa HC23 Apr 2021CMP/277/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the order allowing impleadment of lis pendens purchasers as co-plaintiffs. The court held that lis pendens purchasers should generally be impleaded as defendants, not plaintiffs, especially when initiated by the original plaintiffs to delay litigation, and set aside the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order ordering impleadment of lis pendens purchasers as co-plaintiffs set aside; interim order vacated; trial court directed to dispose of suit expeditiously.

Satrughna Padhan Vs Dama Padhan — Property and Title | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

CMP No. 277 of 2014

¶2

23.04.2021 This matter is taken up through video conferencing mode.

¶3

Heard Mr.N.C.Pati, learned counsel for the petitioners. None appears for the opposite parties, although they are represented by learned counsel.

¶4

Petitioners, in this writ petition, seek to assail the order dated 08.01.2014 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonepur in TS No.22 of 1997, whereby he allowed an application filed by the plaintiffs for impleading the lis pendens purchasers as co-plaintiffs.

¶5

Mr.Pati, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the plaintiffs initially sold the land to defendants by virtue of registered sale deed and delivered possession. Subsequently, TS No.22 of 1997 has been filed to declare the sale deed executed in favour of the defendants to be null and void. During pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs again sold the land to one Rasananda Bhoi and one Kalia Pradhan and an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was filed to implead them as coplaintiffs. Mr.Pati, learned counsel further submits that the lis pendens purchasers had never come up to be impleaded as parties to the suit. It is at the instance of the plaintiffs, a direction was made to

¶6

¶7

implead them as co-plaintiffs. Such an order is not sustainable in the eyes of law in view of the fact that lis pendens purchasers can at the worst be added as defendants depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case, but without complying with the requirements as per law, they cannot be impleaded or substituted as plaintiffs. When the plaintiffs are diligently pursuing the suit the lis pendens purchasers should not be directed to be impleaded as parties. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court had failed to take into consideration the conduct of the plaintiffs in harassing the defendants. Hence, he prays for setting aside the impugned order.

¶8

Taking into consideration the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, it is apparent that the lis pendens purchasers, namely, Rasananda Bhoi and Kalia Pradhan had never come up to be impleaded as parties to the suit. It is at the instances of the plaintiffs, an application was filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impletion of lis pendens purchasers as parties to the suit. It appears that learned trial Court was swayed away with an impression that since the plaintiffs and lis

¶9

¶10

pendens purchasers have no conflicting interest there is no difficulty in impleading them as plaintiffs. Although learned trial Court has relied upon several case laws and analyzed the same in detail, but in the facts and circumstances of the case, the same are not applicable to the case at hand.

¶11

In that view of the matter, when the lis pendens purchasers have not come up for their impletion as parties to the suit, the petition at the instance of the plaintiffs is misconceived. From the conduct of the plaintiffs, it prima facie appears that the plaintiffs have taken shelter of provision of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to protract the litigation, which is not the object and intent of the said provision.

¶12

In that view of the matter, the impugned order being not sustainable is set aside.

¶13

7.1 Interim order dated 28.03.2014 passed in Misc. Case No.2014 stands vacated. Learned trial Court is directed to proceed with the suit and see that the matter is disposed of expeditiously.

¶14

7.2 As restrictions due to resurgence of COVID19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a printout of the order available

¶15

¶16

in the High Court’s website, at par with certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned Advocate, in the manner prescribed vide Court’s Notice No.4587 dated 25th March, 2020 as modified by Court’s Notice No.4798 dated 15^th April, 2021.

¶17

……................................

¶18

K.R. Mohapatra,J.

¶19

Satrughna Padhan v. Dama Padhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satrughna Padhan v. Dama Padhan

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

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akshaya Ku.Pattnaik Vs Debi Pr.Tripathy

Chakradhar Sethi Vs Satyabhama Sethi

Dinabandhu Daruan Vs Collector, Subarnapur

Harsh Vardhan Lal Vs Ajaya Kumar Mohapatra

Jagadish Bhoi Vs Humer Singh Majhi

Ajaya K.Mohapatra Vs Lingaraj Bisoi andORS