Mandhata Bijay Ketan Bidyadhara Mohapatra Vs Satyanarayan Patra

¶1

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CU TTACK Date: 08-Jul-2025 12:03:16

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶3

CMP No.16 OF 2023

¶4

(An application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India)

¶5

¶6

Mandhata Bijaya Ketan Bidyadhara Mohapatra -versus- Satyanarayan Patra and others

¶7

.... Petitioner

¶8

…. Opp. Parties

¶9

Advocates appeared :

¶10

For Petitioners : Mr. Amit Prasad Bose, Advocate,

¶11

For Opp. Parties : Mr. Tusar Kumar Mishra, Advocate

¶12

(For Opposite Party Nos.3 and 4)

¶13

CORAM:

¶14

JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

¶15

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶16

Heard and disposed of on 24.06.2024

¶17

J U D G M E N T

¶18

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶19

2. Order dated 15^th December, 2022 (Annexure-1) passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Puri in CS No.305 of 2019 is under challenge in this CMP, whereby an application filed by Opposite Party Nos.3 and 4 for being impleaded as parties to the suit, has been allowed.

¶20

3 . Mr. Bose, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the suit has been filed against Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 for partition of the properties of Gopabandhu Patra. During pendency of the suit, Opposite Party Nos.3 and 4, namely, Chittaranjan Patra and Soudamni Biswal respectively filed an

¶21

CMP No.16 OF 2023 Page 1 of 6

¶22

Signature Not Verified

¶23

Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CU TTACK Date: 08-Jul-2025 12:03:16

¶24

// 2 //

¶25

application under Order I Rule 10 CPC to be impleaded as parties to the suit claiming to be the children of Gopabandhu Patra. The said application was allowed vide order dated 4^th May, 2022. Assailing the same, the Petitioner preferred CMP No.718 of 2022. This Court, vide order dated 28^th September, 2022 set aside the said order and remitted the matter to learned trial Court to adjudicate the petition under Order I Rule 10 CPC afresh giving opportunity of hearing to the parties. Accordingly, learned trial Court passed the impugned order under Annexure-1. Hence, this CMP has been filed.

¶26

3.1 It is further submitted by Mr. Bose, learned counsel that in his objection the Plaintiff-Petitioner specifically stated that the Opposite Party Nos.3 and 4 are the adopted son and daughter of Pitabas Patra. It is also admitted so by Opposite Party No.3 in FA No.406 of 1977 on the basis of which ancestral properties were partitioned on compromise between Gopabandhu and Pitabas, who were two brothers. This material aspect was conveniently ignored by learned trial Court while adjudicating the petition under Order I Rule 10 CPC. Although no document was filed along with the petition under Order I Rule 10 CPC, but in course of argument, Opposite Party Nos. 3 and 4 produced certain documents such as the High School certificate of Opposite Party No.3, his voter list as well as Driving License in which he has been described as the son of Gopabandhu Patra. In the plaint of CS No.167 of 2008, Defendant/Opposite Party No.1 had also described Chittaranjan Patra - Opposite Party No.3 to be the son of

¶27

Page 2 of 6

¶28

CMP No.16 OF 2023

¶29

Signature Not Verified

¶30

Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CU TTACK Date: 08-Jul-2025 12:03:16

¶31

// 3 //

¶32

Gopabandhu Patra. Similarly, in CS No.417 of 2013 filed by the wife of Pitabas Patra, said Chittaranjan Patra shown to be son of Gopabandhu Patra. To the contrary, the Plaintiff/Petitioner filed copy of the plaint in OS No.54 of 1995 in which Chittaranjan Patra being the Plaintiff described himself as the son of Pitabas Patra. In the written statement filed in OS No.54 of 1993, Chittaranjan Patra admitted (Opposite Party No.3) himself to be the son of Pitabas Patra. In RSD No.875 dated 4^th August, 1995 and ROR in Khata No.362 of mouza Bijipur also shown the Opposite Party No.3 to be son of Pitabas Patra. However, learned trial Court held that no deed of adoption of Opposite Party No.3 and 4 by Pitabas Patra was filed by the Petitioner in support of his case. Thus, observing that if the petition is allowed, neither of the parties to the suit would be prejudiced, allowed the application. Hence, this CMP has been filed.

¶33

3.2 It is his submission that Opposite Party No.3 having got the benefit of enjoying the property of Pitabas Patra by describing himself as his son in FA No.406 of 1977, the Opposite Party No.3 could not have stated otherwise in the petition under Order I Rule 10 CPC. Likewise, the Opposite Party No.4 is being recognized as the daughter of Pitabas Patra in the locality and in the public. Since the Plaintiff is the dominus litis and he vehemently objected to the impletion of Opposite Party Nos.3 and 4 as parties, he should not have been compelled to litigate with them in view of the ratio decided in Sudhamayee Pattnaik and others Vs. Bibhu Prasad Sahoo and others , reported in

¶34

Page 3 of 6

¶35

CMP No.16 OF 2023

¶36

Signature Not Verified

¶37

Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CU TTACK Date: 08-Jul-2025 12:03:16

¶38

// 4 //

¶39

2022 SCC OnLine SC 1234. He further submits that by impleading Opposite Party Nos.3 and 4, the scope of the suit will be expanded, which is not permissible in law. These aspects were not taken into consideration by learned trial Court while adjudicating the petition. Hence, the impugned order under Annexure-1 is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside.

¶40

4. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for Opposite Party Nos.3 and 4 stoutly refuted such submission and contends that there are documents on record, as aforesaid, to show that Chittaranjan Patra is the son of Gopabandhu Patra. Plaintiff has also admitted that Opposite Party Nos. 3 and 4 are natural born children of Gopabandhu Patra. Thus, in absence of any deed of adoption of Opposite Party Nos 3 and 4 by Pitabas Patra, learned trial Court has committed no error in allowing the petition. He further submits that the suit filed by the widow of Pitabas Patra claiming that Opposite Party No.3 is not the son of Pitabas Patra, is sub judice. Thus, unless the Opposite Party No.3 is impleaded as a party to the suit, he will lose a valuable right over the property in question. He further submits that although there are certain records showing Opposite Party No.3 to be the son of Pitabas Patra, but there is no material on record to show that Soudamini Patra is the daughter of Pitabas Patra. Thus, learned trial Court has committed no error in passing the impugned order. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the CMP.

¶41

Page 4 of 6

¶42

CMP No.16 OF 2023

¶43

Signature Not Verified

¶44

Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CU TTACK Date: 08-Jul-2025 12:03:16

¶45

// 5 //

¶46

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties; perused the materials on record. Although there are certain documents available on record to show that Opposite Party No.3 is the son of Gopabandhu Patra, but a vital document, i.e., affidavit filed by the Opposite Party No.3 himself in FA No.406 of 1977 before this Court, was conveniently ignored by learned trial Court while adjudicating the matter, in spite of the fact that the same was available before him. In FA No.406 of 1977, Opposite Party No.3 describing himself to be the son of Pitabas Patra entered into compromise with Gopabandhu Patra and the First Appeal was disposed of on the basis of compromise recorded between Gopabandhu Patra and Opposite Party No.3 by partitioning the ancestral property between Gopabandhu Patra and Opposite Party No.3. The Petitioner got the benefit of enjoying the share of Pitabas Patra by entering into a compromise with Gopabandhu Patra in FA No.406 of 1977 before this Court claiming to be the son of Pitabas. Thus, he cannot possibly claim any share over the property of Gopabandhu Patra which is put to partition in the present suit.

¶47

6. Further, admittedly there is no document on record to show that Soudamini Patra is the adopted daughter of Pitabas Patra, as claimed by the Plaintiff/Petitioner in his objection. But in view of the ratio in the case of Sudhamayee Pattnaik (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that when the Plaintiff does not want to litigate with a person and in his objection categorically stated that Soudamini Patra is the adopted daughter

Page 5 of 6

CMP No.16 OF 2023

// 6 //

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CU TTACK Date: 08-Jul-2025 12:03:16

¶52

of Pitabas Patra, her impletion will expand the scope of adjudication of the suit, which is not permissible. When the Plaintiff / Petitioner has filed a simple suit for partition, it cannot be converted to a suit at the behest of a party sought to be impleaded.

¶53

7. Further, learned trial Court has committed error in holding that the Plaintiff will not be prejudiced if Opposite Party Nos.3 and 4 are impleaded as parties to the suit. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that learned trial Court has committed an error in allowing the petition filed by the Opposite Party Nos.3 and 4 to be impleaded as parties to the suit. Hence, the impugned order is set aside.

¶54

8. The CMP is allowed to the aforesaid extent, but in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶55

9. Interim order dated 1^st February, 2023 passed in IA No.16 of 2023 stands vacated.

¶56

Issue urgent certified copy of the order on proper application.

¶57

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

¶58

s.s.satapathy

¶59

Page 6 of 6