Prativa Manjari Sahu Vs State of Odisha

By filing the present CMP application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Plaintiff in C.S. No.1136 of 2024 pending in the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) 1^st Court, Cuttack, has approached this Court thereby challenging the impugned order dated 17.03.2026 passed by the above noted court on an application filed by Opposite Party No.5 under Order-1 Rule-10(2) of C.P.C. By virtue of the impugned order, the learned trial court has allowed the application of the Opposite Party No.5

¶20

Page 1 of 4.

¶21

under Order-1 Rule-10(2) of C.P.C. being added him as a party/defendant in the civil suit.

¶22

Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that the suit plot is not a passage and that the same belongs to the Plaintiff. He further contended that claiming her title over the suit plot, the above noted suit was filed by the Plaintiff-Petitioner. He further contended that the intervener has no interest in the suit plot. Therefore, he is not a necessary party to the suit. However, the learned trial court committed a gross error of fact, accepted the contention of the Intervener and allowed the application of the Opposite Party No.5 to implead him as a party to the suit. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the factual background pleaded in the application under Order-1 Rule-10(2) of C.P.C. filed before the trial court by the Intervener-Opposite Party No.5 does not make out a case for the Opposite Party No.5 to be added as a party to the present suit. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Opposite Party No.5 has no interest in the suit property. Therefore, the impugned order dated 17.03.2026 permitting the Opposite Party No.5 to be impleaded as party to the suit is unsustainable in law and, accordingly, the same should be set aside.

¶23

On a careful examination of the submission made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, further on a close scrutiny of the documents annexed to the CMP application, as well as the impugned order dated 17.03.2026 at Annexure-4 passed by the

¶24

Page 2 of 4.

¶25

learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1^st Court, Cuttack, this Court observes that the Petitioner, as a plaintiff, filed a suit for declaration. While the above noted suit was pending, the Opposite Party No.5 filed an application under Order-1 Rule-10(2) of C.P.C with a prayer to implead him as a party.

¶26

On perusal of the application filed by the Opposite Party No.5 under Order-1 Rule-10(2) of C.P.C, at Annexure-2, it appears that the Opposite Party No.5 has made out a prima facie case to establish his interest over the suit scheduled land.

¶27

It has been primarily pleaded that the suit plot is used as a passage, though the same was seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the Petitioner. The learned trial court, after taking note of the contention raised by both sides and upon a careful scrutiny of the factual background of the present case, allowed the prayer of the Opposite Party No.5 to implead him as party by passing a speaking and detailed order. Law is fairly well settled that the Plaintiff is the dominus litis , and that such power conferred upon the Plaintiff to choose his/her adversaries is always subject to the judicial discretion of the court. In the present case, in the application of the Opposite Party No.5, the learned trial court has exercised its discretion under Order-1 Rule-10(2) of the C.P.C. This Court finds no glaring illegality in the impugned order dated 17.03.2026 at Annexure-4. Further, keeping in view the latest judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vinay Raghunath Deshmukh v. Natwarlal Shamji Gada and another, reported in

¶28

Page 3 of 4.

¶29

2026 LiveLaw (SC) 424 , this Court is of the view that the exercise of power under Order-1 Rule-10(2) of C.P.C by the learned trial court in the present case is discretionary in nature. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to exercise its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order dated 17.03.2026 at Annexure-4 to the CMP application.

¶30

While disposing of the present CMP, this Court observes that it is open to the Plaintiff to raise all such contentions during trial which shall be considered by the learned trial court at the time of hearing of the suit.

¶31