[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

Election vs Aruna Kumar Sahoo & Another on 3 February, 2026

                  ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK

                         I.A. No.125 of 2025

(Arising out of I.A. No.114 of 2024 in ELPET No.9 of 2024)

An application under Order 1, Rule 10 for impletion of
Respondent No.2 as Opp. Party No.2 in I.A. No.114 of 2024.

                                  ***

Pratyusha Rajeswari Singh ... Election Petitioner.

-VERSUS-


   Aruna Kumar Sahoo & Another
                                        ...                Respondents.



Counsel appeared for the parties:

For the Petitioner             : Mr. Gopal Agarwal, Senior Adv.
                                 assisted by s. Srivastava, Adv.
                                 Mr. A. Tripathy, Adv.
                                 Mr. N. Dadhichi, Adv.


For the Respondents :        Mr. Bidyadhar Mishra, Sr. Advocate.
                             Ms. T.K. Biswal, Adv.
                             Mr. P.K. Rath, Senior Advocate.
                             (For respondent No.2)

P R E S E N T:

I.A. No.125 of 2025 arising out of I.A. No.114 of 2024 in ELPET No.9 of

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA

Date of Hearing: 06.01.2026 :: Date of Order : 03.02.2026

O RDER

ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.--

1. This Interlocutory Application has been filed by the

respondent No.2 (Hemant Kumar Prusty) in Election Petition No.9

of 2024 under Order 1, Rule 10 of the CPC, 1908 praying for

passing of an order to direct the petitioner in I.A. No.114 of 2024

(respondent No.1 in Election Petition No.9 of 2024) to implead

him (Hemant Kumar Prusty-respondent No.2 in Election Petition

No.9 of 2024) as Opp. Party No.2 in I.A. No.114 of 2024 filed by

him (respondent No.1) stating that, if the I.A. No.114 of 2024 filed

by the respondent No.1 in Election Petition No.9 of 2024 is

allowed, then, the Election Petition No.9 of 2024 shall be

rejected/dismissed and by the result of which, he (respondent

No.2 in Election Petition No.9 of 2024 and petitioner in this I.A.)

shall be highly prejudiced. For which, he (petitioner in this I.A.) is

a necessary party in the I.A. No.114 of 2024 filed by the

respondent No.1 in Election Petition No.9 of 2024.

I.A. No.125 of 2025 arising out of I.A. No.114 of 2024 in ELPET No.9 of

Therefore, he (petitioner) is required to be given an opportunity

of hearing in the I.A. No.114 of 2024. So, if this I.A. filed by him

will not be allowed for his impleadment as the Opp. Party No.2 in

I.A. No.114 of 2024, then, he shall suffer irreparable loss and

injury.

2. During the course of hearing of this I.A., the learned Senior

Counsel for the petitioner in this I.A. (respondent No.2 in Election

Petition No.9 of 2024) also argued in support of the aforesaid

prayers of the petitioner.

The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in I.A. No.114

of 2024 (respondent No.1 in Election Petition No.9 of 2024) did

not object to the aforesaid contentions of the learned Senior

Counsel for the respondent No.2.

To which, the learned Senior Counsel for the Election

Petitioner objected contending that, the self-same issue has

already been decided by this Court vide Order dated 21.11.2025

passed in I.A. No.93 of 2025 rejecting to the prayer for the

impleadment of the petitioner in this I.A. (respondent No.2 in

Election Petition No.9 of 2024) as Opp. Party No.2 in I.A.

No.114/2024, which was filed by the respondent No.1.

I.A. No.125 of 2025 arising out of I.A. No.114 of 2024 in ELPET No.9 of

3. During the course of hearing, the learned Senior Counsel for

the respondent No.1 in Election Petition No.9 of 2024 relied upon

the following decisions for the impleadment of respondent No.2 as

Opp. Party No.2 in this I.A.:

(I) Mumbai International Airport Private Limited Vs. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Private Limited and Others:

(2010) 7 SCC 417.

(II) Civil Appeal Nos.5405-5406 of 2025 reported in 2025 INCS 611.

(III) K. Kamaraja Nadar Vs. Kunju Thevar and Others reported in AIR 1958 SC 687.

(IV) Inamati Mallappa Basappa Vs. Desai Basavaraj Ayyappa and Others: AIR 1958 Supreme Court 698.

4. For the dismissal of this I.A., the learned Senior Counsel

for the Election Petitioner relied upon the following decisions:

(I) K. Venkateswara Rao & Another Vs. Bekkam Narasimha Reddi & Others:1968 SCC Online SC 285 (Para No.11 and

12).

(II) B. Sundara Rami Reddy Vs. Election Commission of India & Others: 1991 Supp. 2 SCC 624 (Para No.4).

5. It appears from the record that, previously the respondent

No.1 in Election Petition No.9 of 2024 had filed an I.A. vide I.A.

No.93 of 2025 praying for the impleadment of the petitioner of

I.A. No.125 of 2025 arising out of I.A. No.114 of 2024 in ELPET No.9 of

this I.A. (respondent No.2 in Election Petition No.9 of 2024) as the

Opp. Party No.2 in the same I.A. vide No.114 of 2024 filed by the

respondent No.1 in Election Petition No.9 of 2024 against the

Election Petitioner.

6. As per the Judgment dated 21.11.2025 passed in I.A.

No.93/2025, this Court rejected to such I.A. No.93/2025 of the

respondent No.1 refusing his prayer to implead the respondent

No.2 in Election Petition No.9/2024 as the Opp. Party No.2 in I.A.

No.114 of 2024 assigning the reasons that,

"the Court trying the Election dispute under R.P. Act, 1951 cannot exercise its power under the General Act i.e. under Order 1, Rule 10 of the CPC, 1908 to direct the parties of the Election Petition for the impleadment of another in the said Election Petition. Because, there is specific provisions in the special Statute i.e R.P. Act, 1951 for impleadment of a party or parties. For which, the provisions under Order 1, Rule 10 of the CPC, 1908 are not applicable for the impleadment of respondent No.2 in the Election Petition as Opp. Party No.2 in the I.A. No.114 of 2024 filed by the respondent No.1. Because, the matters in dispute involves in I.A. No.114 of 2024 is between the respondent No.1 and the Election

I.A. No.125 of 2025 arising out of I.A. No.114 of 2024 in ELPET No.9 of

Petitioner, in which, the respondent No.2 can have no say."

7. The said Judgment dated 21.11.2025 passed in I.A.

No.93/2025 refusing the prayer of the respondent No.1 for the

impleadment of the respondent No.2 of Election Petition No.9 of

2024 (petitioner in this I.A.) as Opp. Party No.2 in I.A. No.114 of

2024 filed by the respondent No.1 has already been reached in its

finality, as the said Judgment dated 21.11.2025 passed in I.A.

No.93 of 2025 has not been challenged by the respondent No.1

before the Apex Court for its variation.

8. It is the settled propositions of law that, what cannot be

done directly, the same is not permissible to be done indirectly or

obliquely. Such principles of law is based on a legal maxim i.e.

QUANDO ALIQUID PROHIBETUR, PROHIBETUR ET OMNE PER

QUOD DEVENITUR AD ILLUD.

9. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been

clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:

(I) In a case between Sant Lal Gupta & Others Vs.

Modern Co-0perative Group Housing Society Ltd &

Others reported in 2010 (4) Civ.L.T. 192 (SC) that, what

I.A. No.125 of 2025 arising out of I.A. No.114 of 2024 in ELPET No.9 of

cannot be done directly, is not permissible to be done

obliquely.

(II) In a case between Sarojini Dei @ Das & Others Vs.

Satya Prasad Pattnaik & Others reported in 2014 (II)

OLR 932 that, what cannot be done directly, is not

permissible to be done indirectly.

(III) In a case between State of Tamil Nadu & Others Vs.

K. Shyam Sunder & Others reported in AIR 2011 SC

3470 that, what cannot be done directly, is not permissible

to be done indirectly.

10. Here in this matter at hand, when the impleadment of the

petitioner (respondent No.2 in Election Petition No.9 of 2024) as

the Opp. Party No.2 in I.A. No.114/2024 sought for by the

respondent No.1 in Election Petition No.9/2024 was

disallowed/refused directly as per the Judgment dated

21.11.2025 passed in I.A. No.93/2025 passed by this Court filed

by the respondent No.1 in Election Petition No.9 of 2024

assigning the aforesaid reasons, then, at this juncture, the self-

same prayer made by the petitioner in this I.A. (respondent No.2

in Election Petition No.9 of 2024) for his impleadment as Opp.

Party No.2 in same I.A. No.114/2024 cannot be allowed indirectly

I.A. No.125 of 2025 arising out of I.A. No.114 of 2024 in ELPET No.9 of