Annapurna Lal Vs Bishnupriya Behera

No notice is required to be issued to opposite party No.1 as the matter is disposed of at the stage of admission. Notices to the proforma opposite parties are dispensed with.

¶18

Instant petition is filed by the petitioners challenging the impugned order dated 17^th September, 2014 at Annexure-5 passed in C.S. No. 23 of 2023 on the grounds stated therein.

¶19

An application under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C. was moved by the petitioners seeking impletion of the purchasers but it has not been entertained leading to the passing of the impugned order vide Annexure-5. The submission is that the suit is for partition and the alleged sale has been effected by the plaintiff and defendant nos.1 to 4 and hence, the purchasers were sought to be impleaded as defendants

¶20

Page 1 of 3

¶21

with an application as per Annexure-3 moved before the learned Court below but it was declined vide Annexure-5.

¶22

In Annexure-3, it is pleaded by the petitioners that the purchasers are to be arrayed as defendants in the suit. An objection was filed from the side of the plaintiff vide Annexure-4. It is not denied therein regarding the alleged purchases by the parties so sought to be impleaded at the instance of the petitioners. On a bare reading of the impugned order at Annexure-5, this Court finds that the Court below though has taken judicial notice of the pleadings on record, but declined such impletion on the premises that no case is made out by the petitioners and the plaintiffs being the master of the suit and hence, they cannot be forced to add the purchasers as defendants. When it is not disputed by the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 4 that the subject of partition includes the properties disposed of in favour of the purchasers, the learned Court below ought to have considered such impletion in terms of the Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C. It is claimed that the disposals in favour of the purchasers have taken place during pendency of the suit. If such is the claim, the lis pendens purchasers have been sought to be impleaded as defendants. The learned Court below simply declined the impletion with a conclusion that the petitioners have failed to make out a case and to satisfy as to how the suit cannot be proceeded and disposed of in absence of the purchasers. Of course, the plaintiff is the master of the suit but since there has been alienation in respect of the properties included for partition in the suit, the purchasers should have been impleaded as parties. Of course, the fate of the alleged alienation shall be subservient to the result of the suit but in the interest of justice, since the purchasers are likely to be affected, any such request for impletion should have been duly considered for just decision in the suit and as it appears, the said aspect

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

has not been looked into by the learned Court below. Hence, this Court is of the conclusion that the impugned order dated 17^th September, 2024 as at Annexure-5 cannot be sustained in law and thus, shall have to be interfered with.

¶25

6. Accordingly, it is ordered.

¶26

In the result, the C.M.P. stands allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 17^th September, 2024 passed in C.S. No. 23 of 2023 is hereby set aside with a direction to implead the alleged purchasers as defendants, as has been applied for by the petitioners and upon receiving a consolidated plaint, learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhawanipatna shall proceed to dispose of the suit as per law.

¶27

In the circumstances, however, there is no cost.

¶28

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

¶29

(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge

¶30

M.K.Rout

¶31

Signature Not Verified

¶32

Digitally Signed Signed by: MANOJ ROUT K Designation: AR-CUM-SENIOR SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 07-May-2025 13:47:50

¶33

Page 3 of 3

Annapurna Lal v. Bishnupriya Behera

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Annapurna Lal v. Bishnupriya Behera

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

Aruna Nayak @ Arun Kumar Nayak Vs Prasanta Kumar Nayak

Ratikanta Dash Vs Debasish Kumar Sahu

Ratikanta Dash Vs Ashish Kumar Sahu

Maheswar Tripathy Vs Jasoda Tripathy

Nalinikant Parida Vs Sushanta Parida

Kautuka Pati Vs Deepak Kumar Paul