Disposed¶24

Krushna Mohan Sahoo v. Collector Dhenkanal

Orissa HC1 May 2025CMP/28/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court, Cuttack; C.M.P. No.28 of 2024; Krushna Mohan Sahoo v. Collector, Dhenkanal & others; Justice R.K. Pattanaik; order dated 01.05.2025; impleadment of opposite party No.7 in representative capacity; Order 1 Rule 8(2) CPC; general notice publication; representative defendant; Section 16 of the OPLE Act; eviction under OPLE Act provisions; encroachment proceeding; Encroachment Appeal No.45 of 2022; stay order dated 20th April, 2023; I.A. No.36 of 2024 interim order vacated; C.S. No. 18 of 2022; Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kamakhya Nagar; suit land recorded 'Smasan', kisam 'Sarbasadharan Jogya'; RoR; Dhenkanal; CMP disposed of.

What did the court decide?

The interim order in I.A. No.36 of 2024 is vacated; urgent certified copy to be issued as per rules. ¶24

Krushna Mohan Sahoo Vs Collector Dhenkanal — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

The interim order in I.A. No.36 of 2024 is vacated; urgent certified copy to be issued as per rules.

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 29th June, 2023 passed in C.S. No. 18 of 2022 (Annexure-3) by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kamakhya Nagar, impleading opposite party No.7 as a defendant in representative capacity, is sustainable and calls for interference by this Court. +1 more

¶20

Court's answer

On reading the impugned order (Annexure-3), the learned Court below acted properly in impleading opposite party No.7 as one of the defendants, taking judicial notice of the encroachment proceeding initiated by opposite party No.3, directing the suit to be defended through opposite party No.7 in representative capacity with the petitioner to comply Order 1 Rule 8(2) CPC by publication of general notice.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

No wrong or serious error was committed by the learned Court below; the impletion of opposite party No.7 in the suit in terms of Order 1 Rule 8(2) CPC as directed by the Court below does not call for any interference.

¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

C.M.P. No.28 of 2024, High Court of Orissa at Cuttack (R.K. Pattanaik, J.), order dated 01.05.2025 — The petitioner challenged the order dated 29th June, 2023 in C.S. No. 18 of 2022 (Annexure-3) of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kamakhya Nagar, whereby opposite party No.7 was impleaded as a defendant to defend the suit in representative capacity, the Court below having taken judicial notice of an encroachment proceeding (Encroachment Appeal No.45 of 2022, disposed of on 17th March, 2023 with a direction for eviction with police assistance) over suit land recorded as 'Smasan' in the RoR with kisam 'Sarbasadharan Jogya', and having directed the petitioner to comply Order 1 Rule 8(2) CPC through publication of general notice. Held: considering the action for eviction under the provisions of the OPLE Act and the recorded submission that the suit is not maintainable in view of Section 16 of the OPLE Act, no wrong or serious error was committed; the impletion of opposite party No.7 in terms of Order 1 Rule 8(2) CPC does not call for any interference. CMP stands disposed of; the interim order in I.A. No.36 of 2024 is vacated. Urgent certified copy as per rules.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

C.M.P. No.28 of 2024

¶3

Krushna Mohan Sahoo … Petitioner

¶4

Mr. P. Panigrahi, Advocate

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

Collector, Dhenkanal & others … Opposite parties Ms. B. Dash, ASC Mr. S. Mohanty, Advocate (O.P. No.7)

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

ORDER

01.05.2025

Order No.

Heard Mr. Panigrahi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Dash, learned ASC for the State for opposite party Nos.1 to 3 besides Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for opposite party No.7.

¶14

Instant petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the correctness of the impugned order dated 29^th June, 2023 passed in C.S. No. 18 of 2022 as at Annexure-3 by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kamakhya Nagar on the grounds stated therein.

¶15

Mr. Panigrahi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that opposite party No.1 was not impleaded as a party to the suit having no locus standi, however, learned Court below allowed the same vide Annexure-3, which is not sustainable in the eye of law and the same is liable to be set aside.

¶16

Recorded the submission of Ms. Dash, learned ASC for the State for opposite party Nos.1 to 3.

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for opposite party No.7 submits that the suit land is recorded as ‘Smasan’ in the RoR with the kisam ‘Sarbasadharan Jogya’, which is in forceful possession of the petitioner, for which, the encroachment proceeding has been initiated with the filing of Encroachment Appeal No.45 of 2022 being disposed of on 17^th March, 2023 followed by a direction for eviction with the assistance of local police. It is submitted that in view of interim order in I.A. No.36 of 2024 of this Court therein, the eviction has not taken place.

¶19

According to Mr. Panigrahi, learned counsel for the petitioner, such an order in encroachment proceeding has been stayed by order dated 20^th April, 2023 in Encroachment Appeal No.45 of 2022.

¶20

Upon a reading of the impugned order as at Annexure-3, this Court finds that the learned Court below considered it proper to implead opposite party No.7 as one of the defendants taking judicial notice of the encroachment proceeding initiated by opposite party No.3. In fact, direction has been issued by the learned Court below to defend the suit through opposite party No.7 in representative capacity with the direction to the petitioner to comply Order 1 Rule 8(2) CPC with a general notice being published. Considering the facts pleaded and the submission of the learned counsel for the respective parties and as there has been action for eviction as per the provisions of the OPLE Act and recording the submission of Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for opposite party No.7 that the suit at the behest of the petitioner is not maintainable in view of Section 16 of the OPLE Act and the conclusion reached at by the learned Court below to implead him to defend the suit in a representative capacity, this Court does not find any wrong or serious error having been committed in

¶21

Page 2 of 3

¶22

that regard. In other words, impletion of opposite party No.7 in the suit in terms of Order 1 Rule 8(2) CPC as has been directed by the learned Court below does not call for any interference.

¶23