[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Smt. Rukmani Sahoo And Others vs Akhay Barik And Others ..... Opposite ... on 11 March, 2026
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CMP No.63 of 2025
Smt. Rukmani Sahoo and others ..... Petitioners
Represented by Adv. -
Sukanta Kumar Nayak
-versus-
Akhay Barik and others ..... Opposite Parties
Represented by Adv. -
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
11.03.2026
Order No.
03. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners. Perused the CMP
application as well as the prayer made therein.
3. 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.
4. 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
Rule 10 of CPC.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners at the outset contended
that the Petitioner as plaintiff filed the above noted suit for pre-
emption. 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
6. 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 Annexure-
2 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
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.
7. 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.
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the Petitioner and in the
absence of the Opposite Parties, who did not appear despite valid
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.
9. 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
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.
10. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the CMP application
stands disposed of.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )
Judge
S.K. Rout
Signed by: SANTANU KUMAR ROUT Page 5 of 5.
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 13-Mar-2026 17:50:30
