Rukmani Sahoo Vs Akhay Barik

Although notices were issued by this Court vide order dated 29.10.2025 and the office report reveals that the notice has been duly served on the Opposite Parties, however, none appears for the Opposite Parties.

¶18

By filing the present CMP application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the plaintiff in C.S. No.47 of 2022, pending in the court of learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Chandikhole has approached this Court assailing order dated 07.10.2024 passed on an application filed by the Intervener-Opposite Party Nos.14 to 18 under Order 1

¶19

Rule 10 of CPC.

¶20

Learned counsel for the Petitioners at the outset contended that the Petitioner as plaintiff filed the above noted suit for preemption. Originally the Opposite Party Nos.14 to 18 were not arrayed as parties to the suit. Subsequently, during pendency of the suit the Opposite Party Nos.14 to 18 filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC as stranger Opposite Parties stating therein that their common ancestor, namely one Kalpana Sahoo, who happens to be the daughter of one Ekadashi Sahoo, is related to the plaintiff. Therefore, the Opposite Party Nos.14 to 18 filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 to be impleaded as parties to the suit stating in their application that they are necessary parties to the suit

¶21

The application filed by the Opposite Party Nos.14 to 18 under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC was taken up for hearing and the same was allowed by order dated 07.10.2024 at Annexure-4 to the CMP application. While assailing the impugned order dated 07.10.2024 the learned counsel for the plaintiff-Petitioner contended that in their application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC at Annexure2 to the CMP application, the Opposite Party Nos.14 to 18 have not given any details as to how they are related to the plaintiff and in what way they are prejudiced. He further contended that the Opposite Party Nos.14 to 18 have miserably failed to establish the fact that they are necessary parties to the suit which is evident from the application at Annexure-2 to the CMP application. He further contended that no document in support of such contention was ever filed along with the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, referring to the objection filed by

¶22

Page 2 of 5.

¶23

the plaintiff-Petitioner before the learned trial Court at Annexure-3 to the CMP application, categorically submitted that the contention raised in the application at Annexure-2 by the Opposite Party Nos.14 to 18 was shortly denied by the plaintiff and it was disputed and denied that the above named Kalpana Sahoo is in anyway related to the plaintiff’s family.

¶24

In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner, drawing attention of this Court to the impugned order dated 07.10.2024 at Annexure-4, stated before this Court that the learned trial Court by virtue of a short and cryptic order allowed the Opposite Party Nos.14 to 18 to be impleaded as defendants to the suit without verifying the assertions made by the Opposite Party Nos.14 to 18. He further contended that there is nothing on record, at least in their application at Annexure-2 to the CMP application, to establish the fact that the above named Kalpana Sahoo is anyway connected to the plaintiff or his family. The learned trial Court by virtue of the impugned order dated 07.10.2024, after considering the objection filed by the plaintiff to the application of the Opposite Party Nos.14 to 18, came to a conclusion that the LRs of Kalpana Sahoo are necessary parties to the suit. Accordingly, the prayer for impleadment was allowed. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture contended that the order dated 07.10.2024 is devoid of any reasoning and that the same is unsustainable in law. On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioner prayed for setting aside of the order dated 07.10.2024 at Annexure-4 to the CMP application.

¶25

After hearing the learned counsel for the Petitioner and in the absence of the Opposite Parties, who did not appear despite valid

¶26

Page 3 of 5.

¶27

service of the notice, this Court carefully examined the documents annexed to the CMP application, particularly the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC at Annexure-2, the objection filed by the plaintiff at Annexure-3 and the impugned order dated 07.10.2024 at Annexure-4. On a close scrutiny of the aforesaid documents, this Court found that the Opposite Party Nos.14 to 18 filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC to be impleaded as parties claiming themselves to be the legal heirs of one Kalpana Sahoo. However, there is no averment to support such contention neither any document was annexed to such application. Although the plaintiff objected to the claim of the Opposite Party Nos.14 to 18, the learned trial Court by virtue of the impugned order dated 07.10.2024 has allowed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC. So far as the law with regard to the applicability of Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC is concerned, by now it is settled that the plaintiff is the dominus litis , however, the addition of the parties to the suit shall always be subject to the discretion of the learned trial Court. It is not disputed that the learned trial Court on being satisfied and in exercise of its discretionary power can always add a party to the suit.

¶28

In the present case, on a careful scrutiny of the documents annexed to the CMP application, this Court found that the Opposite Party Nos.14 to 18 have not explained as to how they are interested in the suit property and how their right is going to be affected. In the absence of such explanation they cannot be treated as a necessary parties to the suit. Moreover, the plaintiff has not made any prayer against the Opposite Party Nos.14 to 18 in the suit. On a careful scrutiny of the order dated 07.10.2024, this Court is of the view that the learned trial Court has mechanically passed the impugned order

¶29

Page 4 of 5.

¶30

without applying his judicial mind. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 07.10.2024 is unsustainable in law and accordingly the same is hereby set aside. Further, the matter is remanded back to the trial Court to consider the application afresh after providing opportunity of hearing to both sides and, such application shall be disposed of by passing a reasoned order within a period of two months from the date of communication of a copy of today’s order.

¶31

With the aforesaid observation/direction, the CMP application stands disposed of.

¶32

( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )

¶33

Judge

¶34

S.K. Rout

¶35

Signature Not Verified

¶36

Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTANU KUMAR ROUT Page 5 of 5. Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 13-Mar-2026 17:50:30

Rukmani Sahoo v. Akhay Barik

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rukmani Sahoo v. Akhay Barik

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

Dipti Ranjan Sahu Vs the Chairman, Odisha Staff Selection Commission,Bhubaneswar

Sushila Chandra Paradhan Vs Secretary, the State Education Tribunal, Odisha

Kadambari Mohanta Vs State of Odisha

Prakash Kumar Rath Vs State of Odisha

Shashanka Sur Vs State of Odisha

Masjig E Ahle Hadees Vs Md. Anis Khan