LAWS(SC)-2022-9-72

SUDHAMAYEE PATTNAIK Vs. BIBHU PRASAD SAHOO

Decided On September 16, 2022
Sudhamayee Pattnaik Appellant
V/S
Bibhu Prasad Sahoo Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dtd. 28/3/2022 passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in CMP No. 258/2019, by which the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition preferred by the appellants herein - original plaintiffs and has confirmed the order passed by the trial Court allowing application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC preferred by original defendant Nos. 1 to 4 and thereby directing to implead the subsequent purchasers as defendants in the suit instituted by the original plaintiffs, the original plaintiffs have preferred the present appeal.

(2.) The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are as under: That the appellants - original plaintiffs instituted Civil Suit No. 298/2011 against the original defendants for declaration, permanent injunction and recovery of possession. In the said suit, original defendants appeared and filed their joint written statement along with counter-claim for declaration of their right, title and interest over the suit property and for permanent injunction. After the evidence from the side of the plaintiffs was closed, original defendant Nos. 1 to 4 filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and prayed for impleadment of subsequent purchasers as party defendants alleging inter alia that during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs have illegally and unlawfully alienated some parcels of the disputed land in favour of one Manasi Sahoo wife of Sanjaya Kumar Sahoo, Bharat Chandra Sahoo, Dhaneswar Sahoo and Kedarnath Sahoo. Therefore, it was prayed to implead the subsequent purchasers as party defendants for proper adjudication of the suit and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants - original plaintiffs has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, both, the trial Court as well as the High Court have committed a grave error in allowing the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, which was at the instance of the defendants.