Dismissed¶25

Kedar Chandra Mohanty v. Anusuya Mohanty

Orissa HC8 Jan 2025CMP/1261/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court CMP dismissed — impleadment of proposed defendant refused; Order I Rule 10 and Section 151 CPC; necessary party / proper party test; same property but differing reliefs (eviction-injunction suit vs declaration-partition suit); decree in one suit held not to affect the other; impleadment would expand scope of suit; trial court order of 16-09-2024 in Civil Suit No. 2801 of 2016 upheld.

What did the court decide?

Although the reliefs claimed in the two suits differ (eviction in Civil Suit No. 2801 of 2016 versus declaration and partition in Civil Suit No. 121 of 2003), the property involved in both is one and the same. ¶21

Kedar Chandra Mohanty Vs Anusuya Mohanty — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner is a necessary or proper party to Civil Suit No. 2801 of 2016 such that he should be impleaded as a Defendant under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C.

¶19

Court's answer

¶21

Ratio / Principle

Given the nature of the prayers in the respective suits, any decree in Civil Suit No. 2801 of 2016 will not affect the Petitioner, and the decrees in the two suits will not affect each other's adjudication, and vice versa.

¶24

Key takeaways

The Petitioner is neither a necessary nor a proper party to Civil Suit No. 2801 of 2016.ratio¶24
Impleading the Petitioner in the suit would expand the scope of the suit, which is not permissible in law.ratio¶24
The learned trial Court committed no error in dismissing the Petitioner's petition for intervention (impleadment application).ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa (K.R. Mohapatra, J.) — CMP No.1261 of 2024, decided 08.01.2025: Dismissed. The CMP challenged the order dated 16.09.2024 (Annexure-7) of the 2nd Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar in Civil Suit No. 2801 of 2016, which had rejected the Petitioner's application under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. to be impleaded as a Defendant. The Petitioner, whose own Civil Suit No. 121 of 2003 seeks declaration of his legitimate share in suit Plot No. 92 and partition, argued that both suits concern the same property and that non-impleadment risked conflicting decisions. The Court held that although the reliefs in the two suits differ (eviction/injunction versus declaration/partition), the property is the same; yet any decree in the Opposite Party No.1's eviction suit would neither affect the Petitioner nor the adjudication of his partition suit, and vice versa. The Petitioner was therefore found to be neither a necessary nor a proper party, and impleading him would impermissibly expand the scope of the suit. The trial Court's rejection of the intervention petition was affirmed as error-free, and the CMP was dismissed as devoid of merit.

¶1

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CU TTACK Date: 09-Jan-2025 15:25:49

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP NO.1261 of 2024

¶3

Kedar Chandra Mohanty

¶4

… Petitioner

¶5

Mr. Prakash Ranjan Barik, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

Anusuya Mohanty and others …. Opp. Parties Mr. Shib Shankar Mohanty, Advocate (For Opposite Party No.1)

¶8

CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

08.01.2025

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶14

Order dated 16^th September, 2024 (Annexure-7) passed by learned 2^nd Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Bhubaneswar in Civil Suit No. 2801 of 2016 is under challenge in this CMP, whereby an application filed by the Petitioner under Order I Rule 10, read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. to be impleaded as Defendant in the suit, has been rejected.

¶15

Mr. Barik, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 2801 of 2016 is the Sister-in-law (wife of his elder brother) in the suit. The suit has been filed by the Plaintiff/Opposite Party No.1 for declaration that the Defendants have no right, title and interest to occupy the suit property and a decree for eviction of the Defendants from the suit property along with decree of permanent injunction has been sought for. The Petitioner has also filed Civil Suit No.121 of 2003 for declaration that he is entitled to get his legitimate share in the suit Plot No.92 and for partition of the suit property. It is his submission that the property involved in both the suits is same.

¶16

Page 1 of 3

¶17

Signature Not Verified

¶18

Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CU TTACK Date: 09-Jan-2025 15:25:49

¶19

Unless the Petitioner is impleaded as a party to the suit, there might be conflict of decision and in that event the Petitioner will suffer immensely. It is his submission that the Petitioner is sailing in the same boat as that for the Plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 2801 of 2016. Thus, the Plaintiff will in no way be aggrieved if the Petitioner is impleaded as a Defendant in the present suit. He further submits that for an effective adjudication of the suit and to bring an end to the litigation between the parties, the Petitioner should be impleaded as the party to the suit. Without considering the same, impugned order under Annexure-7 has been passed. Hence, he prays for setting aside the order under Annexure-7 and to direct learned trial Court to implead the Petitioner as a party to the present suit.

¶20

Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.1 vehemently objected the same. It is his submission that the Petitioner is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the present suit. The suit can be effectively adjudicated in absence of the Petitioner. Further, presence of the Petitioner is not necessary for proper adjudication of the suit. The Plaintiff being dominus litis does not want to litigate with the Petitioner in the present suit. If the suit is decreed, neither any relief sought for by the Petitioner in CS No.121 of 2003 will be affected nor the decree passed in the present suit would in any way prejudice the Petitioner. As such, learned trial Court has committed no error in rejecting the petition for intervention.

¶21

Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that although the relief claimed in both the suits are different but the property involved therein is one and the same. Suit filed by Opposite Party No.1 in Civil Suit No.2801

¶22

Page 2 of 3

¶23

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CU TTACK Date: 09-Jan-2025 15:25:49

¶24

of 2016 is for eviction and suit filed by the present Petitioner, i.e., Civil Suit No.121 of 2003 is for declaration and for partition. In view of the nature of prayer made in the present suit filed by the Opposite Party No.1, the decree, if any, passed in favour of the Plaintiff /Opposite Party No.1, will certainly not affect the Petitioner. Further, the decree passed, if any, in Civil Suit No.2801 of 2016 will certainly not affect adjudication of CS No.121 of 2003 and vice versa. Thus, the Petitioner is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the present suit. By impleading the Petitioner in the present suit, the scope of the suit will be expanded, which is not permissible in law. As such, learned trial Court has committed no error in dismissing the petition for intervention filed by the present Petitioner.

¶25

Hence, the CMP stands dismissed being devoid of any merit.

¶26

(K.R. Mohapatra)

¶27

Judge

¶28

Jina

¶29

Page 3 of 3

Kedar Chandra Mohanty v. Anusuya Mohanty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kedar Chandra Mohanty v. Anusuya Mohanty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satyajit Rout Vs Sujata Biswal

Kalpana Maharana Vs State of Odisha

Harekrushna Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Damayanti Panda Vs Akshya Kumar Sahu

Sushree Rath Vs Subhashree Rout@Selvarajoo

Mohanlal Agarwal Vs Ardhendu Sekhar Ratha