implead Laxmidhar Moharana and Surendra Moharana (sons of Panchei) as proforma Defendant Nos.2 and 3. It is his submission that the sale deed was executed in favour of Defendant-Opposite Party by practicing fraud. Laxmidhar Moharana and Surendra Moharana are witnesses to the said sale deed. Thus, there is connivance of the Defendant with Laxmidhar and Surendra for execution of the sale deed. Adhiraj Moharana, the Defendant is none other than the son of Laxmidhar Moharana. Thus, said Laxmidhar Moharana and Surendra Moharana have conflicting interest with the Petitioner. As such they cannot join together to pursue the suit. Learned trial Court, without appreciating the position of law, directed to implead the Petitioners as well as Laxmidhar Moharana and Surendra Moharana as Plaintiffs in place of deceased Panchei Moharana. He, therefore, prays for setting aside the impugned order and to issue direction to implead Laxmidhar and Surendra as proforma Defendant Nos. 2 and 3. 5. Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the Opposite Party/Defendant submits that the CMP is not maintainable as said Laxmidhar Moharana and Surendra Moharana are not made parties. Further there is no allegation of connivance of Laxmidhar Moharana and Surendra Moharana in executing the sale deed. They were only witnesses to the said sale deed. In absence of any specific allegation against said Laxmidhar and Surendra in executing the sale deed, no presumption can be drawn that they have connivance with the Defendant. In that view of the matter, he prays for dismissal of the CMP.
