Pankaj Kumar Mediratta vs Dr.Anil Kumar Mediratta & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 2716 Ori

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                             CMP NO.455 OF 2022

        Pankaj Kumar Mediratta                    ....           Petitioner
                                                       Mr.S.Mishra, Adv.
                                       -versus-
        Dr.Anil Kumar Mediratta & ors.            ....    Opposite Party(s)


                 CORAM:
                 JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH
                                   [

                                   ORDER

Order                              19.5.2022
No.
  1.    1.      Learned counsel for the Petitioner.

2. The CMP involves rejection of the Application under Order

1 Rule 10(2) of C.P.C. undisputedly at the instance of Defendant

No.1.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the above

Application was moved on the premises that not only the Plaintiffs

brought some of the subsequent Purchasers, as Defendants for

consideration of the suit involved but they have deliberately omitted

certain other Purchasers from the Plaintiffs involving the suit

property. Learned counsel for the Petitioner opposing to the rejection

of such Application contended that looking to the nature of relief of

perpetual injunction involved therein involving the very same

property since other Parties have already come into possession, it

becomes the duty of the Plaintiffs to bring such Parties to at least to

// 2 //

have effective adjudication of the suit. Taking this Court to the plea

taken in the Written Statement, learned counsel for the Petitioner

also contended that this Defendant has already a clear pleading on

this aspect. It is also alleged, in spite of such clear pleading in the

Written Statement, the Plaintiffs are not setting their Brief in order

compelling the Defendants to bring such Party to at least prevent any

risk to it by virtue of decree passed in favour of the Plaintiffs. It is in

the above backgrounds, learned counsel for the Petitioner contested

the impugned order and requested this Court for interfering with the

impugned order and set aside the same thereby allowing such

Application involved therein.

4. Considering the contentions of the learned counsel for the

Petitioner and looking to the nature of the suit, this Court finds,

undisputedly the suit involves a decree of perpetual injunction. This

Court finds, even though learned counsel for the Petitioner is

justified saying, in the event the relief granted involving perpetual

injunction in the execution of suit decree ultimately the Party sought

to be added by the Defendants will be a necessary Party. This Court

observes, it is for the Plaintiffs to set their Brief in right direction not

only that, to bring real Contestants to get effective adjudication and

in no case, it becomes the responsibility of the Defendants to attempt

to cure the defects committed by the Plaintiffs. For the opinion of

// 3 //

this Court, in the event the Plaintiffs have major defects leading to

no effective execution of decree, if any, passed and even after the

defects are brought to the notice are not even cured after the

pleadings have been brought in Written Statement, the Plaintiffs

have to suffer for not taking appropriate step. Law is fairly settled

that the Plaintiffs have to stand on their own legs. It is up to the

Plaintiffs to proceed with their own case.

5. This Court for the above observation finds, there is no

ground to interfere with the impugned order except observing, the

judgment, if any, passed in the suit involved herein shall be binding

only on the Parties.

6. The CMP stands disposed of accordingly.

(Biswanath Rath) Judge M.K.Rout