High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the rejection of an application to implead the State of Odisha in a civil suit for injunction. The Court held the plaintiff is dominus litis and cannot be compelled to implead an unwanted defendant.
Writ petition dismissed; interim order vacated.
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.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 30-Aug-2023 19:40:00
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 17705 OF 2012
Kedar Kumar Parida and others
…. Petitioners Mr. A.K. Nath, Advocate
-versus-
…. Opp. Parties Mr. Dayananda Mohapatra, Advocate
Prakash Chandra Panda and another
CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No.
29.08.2023
Page 1 of 3
Signature Not Verified
// 2 //
Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 30-Aug-2023 19:40:00
aspects, rejected the petition. Hence, this writ petition has been filed.
“ 11. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the defendants in the suit filed application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and prayed to implead the subsequent purchasers as party defendants. The suit is for declaration, permanent injunction and recovery of possession. As per the settled position of law, the plaintiffs are the dominus litis. Unless the court suo motu directs to join any other person not party to the suit for effective decree and/or for proper adjudication as per Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, nobody can be permitted to be impleaded as defendants against the wish of the plaintiffs. Not impleading any other person as defendants against the wish of the plaintiffs shall be at the risk of the plaintiffs. Therefore, subsequent purchasers could not have been impleaded as party defendants in the application submitted by the original defendants, that too against the wish of the plaintiffs .”
Page 2 of 3
Signature Not Verified
// 3 //
Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 30-Aug-2023 19:40:00
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.
ms
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge
Page 3 of 3
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a defendant can compel the plaintiff to implead the State of Odisha as a party to a suit under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC when the plaintiff opposes it.
Whether the lower court correctly rejected the application to implead the State of Odisha in a suit for injunction.
Whether the plaintiff's opposition to impleading the State of Odisha negates any infirmity in the lower court's order.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sudhamayee Pattnaik and others –v- Bibhu Prasad Sahoo and othersApplied¶6
2022 SCC Online SC 1234 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kedar Kumar Parida and others
Prakash Chandra Panda and another
K.R. Mohapatra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
