Ramesh Chandra Jena v. R.K. Birendranath

Orissa HC7 May 2025CMP/113/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court (Cuttack), CMP No.113 of 2025, 07.05.2025, R.K. Pattanaik J — impletion of an outsider-purchaser in a partition suit; application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC declined by Senior Civil Judge, Keonjhar in C.S. No.111 of 2018 set aside; petitioner party to registered agreement for sale (Annexure-3, 15.12.2021, Rs.9 lac/Rs.15 lac) impleaded as defendant instead of pursuing separate suit for specific performance; CMP allowed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

CMP allowed; impugned order dated 16th December, 2024 in C.S. No.111 of 2018 set aside; petitioner directed to be impleaded as one of the defendants; court below to proceed and dispose of the suit as per law; no order as to costs. ¶¶26

Ramesh Chandra Jena Vs R.K. Birendranath — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CMP No.113 of 2025

Ramesh Chandra Jena

Petitioner

Mr. A. P. Bose, Advocate

¶6

-Versus-

¶7

R. K. Birendranath and others

¶8

…. Opposite parties

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

ORDER

Order No.

07.05.2025

The correction to the case number in the prayer portion of the petition is allowed on the prayer of Mr. Bose, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶16

Heard Mr. Bose, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶17

No notice is issued to opposite party No.1 as the matter is disposed of at the stage of admission. No notices need be issued to proforma opposite parties and hence, the same is dispensed with.

¶18

Instant petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the correctness of the impugned order dated 16^th December, 2024 as at Annexure-1 passed in connection with C.S. No.111 of 2018 by learned Senior Civil Judge, Keonjhar, whereby, an application for impletion filed by him in terms of Order 1 Rule 10 (2) CPC was declined.

¶19

Mr. Bose, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit is instituted in 2018 and in 2021, a registered agreement was executed by opposite party No.1 in favour of the petitioner, after having received the consideration money. It is further submitted that opposite party No.1 received an amount of Rs.9 lac out of the total consideration money of Rs.15 lac and while

¶20

Page 1 of 3

¶21

claiming so, Mr. Bose, learned counsel refers to a copy of the registered agreement as at Annexure-3. The contention is that the suit is for partition and since in respect of the suit land, such a registered agreement as per Annexure-3 was executed in 2021, the petitioner though an outsider but to be affected by a decree therein, should have been allowed to be impleaded as one of the defendants but learned court below refused it and passed the impugned order dated 16^th December, 2024. The contention is that the petitioner having instituted a suit seeking relief of specific performance of contract against opposite party No.1 but it would have been well served, if the impletion was allowed, while considering the application i.e. Annexure-4. So, therefore, the submission is that the learned court below ought to have considered impletion of the petitioner even in a suit for partition and therefore, the impugned order i.e. Annexure-1 is liable to be interfered with.

¶22

A copy of the plaint is at Annexure-2 and it reveals that the suit is instituted by opposite party No.1 seeking partition of the schedule properties inclusive of the land agreed upon to be sold in favour of the petitioner as per and consequent upon Annexure-3. An application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC was filed by the petitioner, to which, an objection was received from opposite party No.1 and thereafter, the impugned order as at Annexure-1 was passed by learned court below denying such impletion. From Annexure-3, it is revealed that the agreement for sale was executed on 15^th December, 2021 in between the petitioner and opposite party No.1 in respect of the suit land, which is a subject to the partition in the suit. If in case, the suit is decreed and disposed of without a decision with regard to the suit schedule land purportedly to be sold later to the petitioner as per the agreement i.e. Annexure-3, it is claimed that the same is likely to affect the latter’s interest. The Court is of the view that even though the suit

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

is for partition and is at the behest of opposite party No.1 and admittedly, petitioner is an outsider and not a co-parcener but a party to the agreement in question i.e. Annexure-3, it would best serve the purpose, if he is impleaded as one of the defendants instead of forcing him to institute another suit seeking a relief of specific performance of contract so that he may chalk out the remedy accordingly.

¶25

7. Hence, it is ordered.

¶26

In the result, the CMP stands allowed. As a necessary corollary, the impugned order dated 16^th December, 2024 in C.S. No.111 of 2018 by learned Senior Civil Judge, Keonjhar is hereby set aside with a direction to implead the petitioner as one of the defendants and thereafter, to proceed and to dispose of the suit as per and in accordance with law. In the circumstances, however, there is no order as to costs.

¶27

9. Urgent copy of this order be issued as per rules.

¶28

Rojina

¶29

Signature Not Verified

¶30

Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJINA SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CTC Date: 09-May-2025 11:53:42

¶31

Page 3 of 3

Ramesh Chandra Jena v. R.K. Birendranath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Chandra Jena v. R.K. Birendranath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rabindra Sahu Vs Shibaprasad Sahu

State of Odisha Vs Rahisa Khatoon

Harekrushna Pattnaik Vs Sibanarayan Bhanja

Laxman Kumar Dey Vs Sukanta Kumar Dey

Executive Engineer (Elect.), Tpwodl, Sundergarh Vs Sukumar Ghosh

Sunita Behera Vs Susanta Behera