Dismissed

Hara Prasad Malick v. Govt. of Odisha

Orissa HC12 Apr 2021CMP/80/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a contempt petition challenging an order impleading opposite parties claiming possession of suit land in a declaration suit under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC, finding no infirmity as they were necessary parties to avoid multiplicity of litigation.

What did the court decide?

The Court confirmed the impugned order allowing impleadment of opposite parties Nos. 3 to 11 and disposed of the CMP.

Hara Prasad Malick Vs Govt. of Odisha — Property and Title | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

CMP No. 80 of 2021

¶2

12.04.2021

¶3

This matter is taken up through video conferencing mode.

¶4

Heard Mr.Niranjan Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Miss Samapika Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-opposite parties 1 and 2.

¶5

Petitioner, in this CMP seeks to assail the order dated 23.12.2020 (Annexure-1) passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Basudevpur in the district of Bhadrak in CS No.27 of 2020-I, whereby he allowed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC filed by opposite party Nos. 3 to 11.

¶6

Mr.Panda, leanred counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner along with others have filed CS No.27 of 2020-I for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land. The suit has been filed against the Government. Thus, opposite party Nos. 3 to 11 have no locus standi to file a petition under Order I Rule 10 (2) CPC to be impleaded as parties to the suit. The State Government in whose favour the land in question has been recorded, has neither come up with a plea to implead opposite party Nos.3 to 11 in the suit nor claim that the opposite party Nos. 3 to 11 are in possession over the suit land. Thus, their claim of title over the suit land

¶7

¶8

vis-à-vis the plaintiff/petitioner is baseless and the petition under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC should not have been entertained on such vague plea.

¶9

Miss Mishra, learned ASC vehemently objected to the above and contends that opposite party Nos.3 to 11 have come up with a specific plea that they are in possession over the suit land and contention to the effect that they are in possession over the suit land can be adjudicated in the suit itself by receiving evidence from the parties. Thus, the petition filed under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC should not be dismissed at the threshold. Order I Rule 10(2) CPC has been incorporated in the CPC for avoiding multiplicity of litigations. If opposite party Nos.3 to 11 are not impleaded, it may lead to further litigation which will frustrate the object and intent of Order I Rule 10(2) CPC. She therefore prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the parties; perused the materials on record, more particularly the impugned order. It appears that opposite party Nos.3 to 11 have come up with the plea that they are in possession over the suit land in respect of which the plaintiff/petitioner’s claim right, title and interest. Thus, they are likely to be affected if any

¶11

¶12

decree is passed in favour of the plaintiff /petitioner in respect of the suit land. As such, they are necessary parties to the suit.

¶13

In view of the above, I find no infirmity in the impugned order. It is, however, made clear that the plaintiff/petitioner is at liberty to adduce evidence in support of his case to establish his case so far as right, title and interest over the suit land is concerned.

¶14

With the aforesaid observation, this Court confirms the impugned order and disposes of the CMP accordingly.

¶15

8.1 As restrictions due to the COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a soft copy of this order available in the High Court’s website or print out thereof at par with certified copy in the manner prescribed, vide Court’s Notice No.4587 dated 25th March, 2020.

¶16

……................................

¶17

K.R. Mohapatra,J.

¶18

Hara Prasad Malick v. Govt. of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hara Prasad Malick v. Govt. of Odisha

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

Sabita Sethi Vs Suresh Ch.Sahu

Harsha Bhoi Vs Sandeep Traders

Sumitra Pradhan Vs Sriram G.I.Co.Ltd.

Sakuntala Sahu Vs Arakhita Sahu

Alekha Rout Vs State of Odisha

Jogendranath Pradhan Vs Purna Chandra Mohapatra