Petitioner challenged an appellate order impleading him as defendant in a suit concerning a disputed property gift deed. High Court upheld the impleadment as a defendant, dismissing the civil revision petition.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CMP No. 684 of 2022
Haladhar Das Mohapatra
Petitioner
Mr. Malaya Kumar Mishra, Advocate
-versus-
Duryodhan Sahoo and another
…. Opp. Parties
CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No.
21.09.2022
Page 1 of 4
// 2 //
order dated 14th July, 2017 allowed the said application and directed to implead the present Petitioner as a co-plaintiff. Although the said order was not challenged by the Plaintiff himself, Defendant assailed the same in FAO No.5/28 of 2021/2017. Learned additional District Judge, Puri vide order under Annexure-5 modified the order passed by learned trial Court to the extent that said Haldhar Das Mohapatra joined as a Defendant and also directed the Plaintiff to file an amended plaint by impleading said Haladhara Das Mohapatra accordingly.
3.1 Mr. Mishra, learned counsel further submits that by virtue of a gift deed executed by the Plantiff-Harihara Mahapatra, the property in question devolved upon the present Petitioner. Hence, he is a necessary party to the suit. On earlier occasion, due to negligence of the Plaintiff, the suit was dismissed for default, but subsequently with the intervention of this Court, the matter was restored on payment of cost. Thus, there is every likelihood that the Plaintiff may not contest the suit and in that event there will be irreparable loss to the Petitioner. Taking into consideration the same, learned trial Court allowed the application filed by the Petition under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC and directed to implead the Petitioner as a co-Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is not aggrieved by the said order. However, Defendant, who has no locus standi, filed the aforesaid appeal before learned Additional District Judge, Puri under Order XLIII CPC and the impugned order has been passed. While considering the matter, learned appellate Court took into consideration that the Plaintiff has seriously challenged the gift deed specifically stating that it was a forged
Page 2 of 4
// 3 //
document. It is his submission that, had it been so, then the Plaintiff would have challenged the order passed by learned trial Court in impleading the Petitioner as co-Plaintiff. Be that as it may, the Defendant has no say in the matter. However, the said order was challenged by the Defendant and learned appellate Court by misconstruing the position of law, has passed the impugned order. Hence, this CMP has been filed.
Page 3 of 4
// 4 //
the matter, I find no infirmity in the impugned order under Annexure-5, wherein a direction has been made to implead the present Petitioner as a Defendant.
(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge
s.s.satapathy
Page 4 of 4
Haladhar Das Mohapatra
Duryodhan Sahoo
K.R. MOHAPATRA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
