[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
) Pitambar Swain vs ) Collector on 3 February, 2026
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CMP No.525 of 2025
1) Pitambar Swain ..... Petitioners
2) Narayan Chandra Swain Represented by Adv. -
3) Anirudha Swain Mr. Anjan Kumar Biswal
-versus-
1) Collector, Bhadrak ..... Opposite Parties
2) Tahasildar, Bonth Represented by Adv. -
3) Executive Engineer, R&B, Mr. Sarbeswar Behera,
AGA
Bhadrak
4) Debendra Kumar Senapati Mr. Tusar Kumar
Mishra, Advocate for the
O.P. No.4
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
03.02.2026
Order No.
02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. Anjan Kumar Biswal, learned counsel for the
Petitioner as well as Mr. T.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing
for the Opposite Party No.4 suo motu.
3. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for both
sides, the matter was taken up for final hearing.
4. By filing the present CMP application under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India, the plaintiff in C.S. No.1059 of 2023 has
approached this Court challenging the order dated 17.01.2025
passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhadrak
thereby allowing the application of the opposite Party No.4-
stranger filed under Order 1 Rule-10 of CPC.
5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, at the outset, contended
that initially the suit was filed by the Plaintiffs-Petitioners with a
prayer for declaration of his right, title and interest over the land
by way of adverse possession. Admittedly, the land belongs to the
Defendant No.3 to the suit (Executive Engineer R & B, Bhadrak).
He further submitted that the claim of the Petitioner for declaration
of his right, title and interest over the suit land has been filed
claiming such right as against the recorded owner of the land. As
such, learned counsel for the Plaintiff-Petitioner submitted that he
has arrayed the Defendant No.3 other defendants, who have some
semblance of right, title and interest over the suit scheduled land.
6. With regard to the impletion of the Opposite No.4, learned
counsel for the Petitioner submitted that he is a stranger to the suit
and that the Plaintiffs- Petitioners have not sought for any relief
against the Opposite Party No.4. He has also contended that the
Plaintiffs-Petitioners have not alleged anything against the
Opposite Party No.4 and that he has no grievance against the
Opposite Party No.4 in the present suit. The suit is to be decided
between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant nos. 1 to 3, the original
Defendants. On such ground, learned counsel for the Plaintiffs-
Petitioners contended that the Opposite Party No.4- the stranger
intervener is not a necessary party to the present suit. Accordingly,
learned counsel for the Plaintiff-Petitioners challenged the order
dated 17.01.2025 passed by the learned trial court thereby
allowing the application of the Opposite Party No.4 to implead
him as a Defendant in the present suit.
7. Mr. T.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite
Party No.4, who is a newly added Defendant no.4 to the suit,
submitted before this Court that the suit scheduled land contains a
piece of land, which is being used as a road by the Defendant
No.4. Therefore, any decree passed is likely to affect the
Defendant No.4 adversely. On such ground, learned counsel for
the Opposite Party No.4 contended before this Court that the
Opposite Party No.4 is a necessary party to the suit and, as such,
his application under Order-1 Rule-10 of C.P.C. has been rightly
allowed by the learned trial court by taking into consideration the
aforesaid factual background. Hence, Mr. Mishra contended
that the impugned order dated 17.01.2025 does not call for any
interference by this Court at this stage. Accordingly, it was prayed
that the CMP application being devoid of any merit be dismissed
at the threshold.
8. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned
counsels appearing for both sides, on a careful examination of the
documents annexed to CMP application, further keeping in view
the legal position, so far as it relates to Order-1 Rule-10 of the
C.P.C, this Court is of the view that the law is no more res integra.
It is the settled position of law that a person, who is a necessary
party to the suit, can be impleaded as a party to the suit by filing
an application under Order-1 Rule-10 of C.P.C. Such application
has been filed at the instance of Plaintiffs-Petitioners for the
person who is likely to be affected in the event any decree is
passed.
9. By applying the aforesaid yardsticks, this Court examined
the factual background of the present case. On such examination,
it was found that the Plaintiffs-Petitioners have filed a suit for
declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land, which
basically belongs to the Government. The ground on which the
Plaintiffs-Petitioners have prayed for a declaration is that they
have perfected title over the suit land by way of adverse
possession. Thus, the prayer made in the suit has no direct nexus
with the opposite Party No.4. Moreover, the presence of the
Opposite Party No.4 is not required to pass an effective decree, so
far as the Plaintiffs-Petitioners are concerned. In such view of the
matter, this Court has no hesitation in coming to a conclusion that
the Opposite Party No.4 is not a necessary party to the suit of the
present nature. As such, the learned trial court has committed an
illegality by allowing the application under Order-1 Rule-10 of
C.P.C and permitting the Petitioner to be added as Defendant i.e.
Defendant No.4 to the suit. Accordingly, the impugned order dated
17.01.2025 at Annxexure-15 as hereby set aside.
10. While disposing of the present application, this Court further
examined the grievance of the Opposite Party No.4. The Opposite
Party No.4 claims that he has legitimate right over the road.
According to the learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.4, the
road on the Government land is the sole road to have the right of
ingress to the property belonging to the Opposite Party No.4. In
such factual background, this Court is of the considered view that
Defendant No.4 cannot seek any effective relief in the suit filed by
the Plaintiffs-Petitioners. The Defendant No.4 has to approach
the common law forum by filing a separate suit with a specific
prayer for declaration of his legitimate right over the road. In such
view of the matter, the present application is being disposed of by
granting liberty to the Petitioner to file a separate suit claiming his
legitimate right over the road, if any, subject to law of limitation.
11. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the CMP
stands disposed of.
(Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )
Judge
Debasis/Suchitra
