SMT. ANITA CHAND Vs. THE COLLECTOR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The application filed by opposite parties 5 to 8 under Order 1, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code (for short, 'the Code') to implead them as defendants in the suit having been allowed by the Trial Court, the plaintiff filed this application under Sec. 115 of the Code assailing the said order.

(2.) The petitioner filed O.S.No. 195 of 1989-I against Opp. parties 1 to 4 in the Court of the Munsif. Balasore with .the prayers, inter alia, to declare her right, title and interest and confirm her possession over the Schedule 'A' property, to permanently injunct defendants 1 and 2 from interfering with her possession over the Schedule 'B' property and to demolish the structure or any portion of it standing on the said property. The property included in Schedule 'A' to the plaint is not relevant for the purpose of the present proceeding since the Opp. parties 5 to 8 do not claim any interest therein. The property in Schedule 'B' in respect of which the relief of permanent injunction was sought is material for the present purpose. The gist of the case of the petitioner was that one Sukumar Naik executed registered sale deed No. 5131 dated 8.11.1982 in his favour in respect of A.O.03 1/8 decimals out of A.O.05 decimals appertaining to C.S. Plot 570 towards south-western side of the Plot; that C.S. Plot no. 570 was split up into three plots as per the Major Settlement record of rights, i.e. M.S. Plot nos, 22, 23 and 24, that inadvertently M.S. Plot nos. 22 and 23 under M.S. Khata No. 33 were recorded in the names of Anil Kumar Mohapatra, Sunil Kumar Mohapatra, Prasanta Kumar Mohapatra, sons of Haradhan Mohapatra though they had no interest in the said plots that the plaintiff applied for mutation of the said land in her favour vide M.C. No. 1536/86 and the Tahasildar, Balasore vide his order dated 25.10.1988 mutated and corrected the said plot nos. 22 and 23 created new Plots, i.e. plot No. 22/1 (A.O.10 decimals)and Plot No. 23/1 (A.O.11 decimals) in the name of the plaintiff. The plaintiff further alleged that she has constructed a building within the boundary limits of M.S. Plot Nos. 22,23 and 24, equivalent to Mutation Plot Nos. 22/1, 23/1 and 24, but the Tahasildar, Balasore on the allegations that she had encroached upon a portion of the municipal road recorded as M.S. Plot no. 25, served two notices on the plaintiff on 25.3.1989 in Land Encroachment Case No. 78 of 1988 directing her to demolish the building by 27.3.1989. Therefore the plaintiff prayed for permanent injunction against the Tahasildar, Balasore and the Collector, Balasore not to interfere with her possession over the lands under M.S. Plot Nos. 22/1 and 23/1.

(3.) During pendency of the suit the Opp. parties 5 to 8, i.e. Anil Kumar Mohapatra, Sunil Kumar Mohapatra, Prasanta Kumar Mohapatra and Sukanta Kumar Mohapatra filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code seeking to be impleaded as defendants in the suit alleging, inter alia, that behind their back the plaintiff got the 'B' schedule land mutated in M.C. No. 1536/86 exercising undue influence over the Tahasildar, Balasore Sadar; that they are paying rent for the land which was previously recorded in their names and taking advantage of their absence, the plaintiff has started construction over the said land to which the applicants have title. In these circumstances the applicants urged that their presence in the suit is absolutely necessary. In her objection to the aforesaid application the plaintiff stated, inter alia, that the applicants did not disclose the basis of their claim to the suit land; their names had been erroneously recorded in the record of rights and the Tahasildar being duly convinced about the mistake corrected the record by deleting their names and thereafter the land stands recorded solely in the name of the plaintiff and in these circumstances the applicants are neither necessary nor proper parties to the suit.